Patterns of Life: The Art of Tibetan Carpets

PAE e Rt Ore hit Ee PAN eAkR TL aes

THOMAS COLE
With eAN INT RODUTCTIONT BY DIANA XK MYERS

a PATOINEINNS Ol UPI I

TOMA S#COLE

WIT eA NUNIT ROD Cr LONER y DIANA KM TERS

RUBIN MUSEUM OF ART
NEW YORK

This book is published in conjunction with an exhibition organized and presented by the
Rubin Museum of Art, April 8 through August 22, 2011.

Copyright © 2010 by Rubin Museum of Art.

All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in any part, in any form, beyond the
copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public
press, without permission from the Rubin Museum of Art.

Edited by Helen Abbott
Designed by Phil Kovacevich
Printed in Italy

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Cole, Thomas (Thomas P.), 1951-
The Art of Tibetan Carpets / Thomas Cole.
p-cm
“This book is published in conjunction with an exhibition organized and presented by
the Rubin Museum of Art, April 8 through August 22, 2011.”
Introduction by Diana K. Myers.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-9845 190-0-2
1. Rugs, Oriental--China--Tibet--Exhibitions. I. Myers, Diana K. (Diana Kindel), 1955-
II. Rubin Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.) III. Title.
NK2883.A3T5215 2011
746.775 15074747 1--de22
2010048169

ISBN-13: 978-0-9845 190-0-2
ISBN-10: 0984519009

Cover: Catalog No. 6; frontispiece: Catalog No. 3, detail

FOREWORD
DONALD RUBIN

q

PREP ACE
ROBERT M. BAYLIS

)

INTRODUCTION
DIANA K. MYERS
ig

RWGSIIN THE VES OF TIBETAN PEO Pil
THOMAS COLE

7)

CATALOG
THOMAS COLE

35

BIBLIOGRAPHY
104

SAE he Each A Pe Pain
fet eront te + hh 8 ohare

tat oy

be OM ays Oe oe ed
oa nye ream

Py my
aoe 7,
vein et genie!

mm

waht hte
oes,

. . $ + how

oy aie phe

«ath p

om) bak | teh Ley

ee on ae oe

nt
neh
ret eer br
fot hy ee

lie

DONALD RUBIN

AS A COLLECTOR OF ART FROM TIBET, I can fully
appreciate the immediate and intuitive response that Bob
and Lois Baylis have had to Tibetan thangkas and rugs.
Their response was highly personal, and the pieces they
acquired have been an intimate part of their daily lives over
the years of their collecting. I have often spoken of my own
heart connection to the art from the Himalayan region,
and this is a connection the Baylises share. The joy they
have—their own heart connection—came in response to
the wonderful variety and idiosyncratic nature of rugs made
in Tibet.

I know that Bob and Lois would deny that they are experts
in the field of Tibetan rugs, or Tibetan art of any kind,

but the works they have collected reflect an informed
intelligence underlying their passion for these objects.
Relinquishing these beloved possessions for the duration
of the exhibition and beyond has been done in a spirit of
generosity. Through looking at and learning about these
objects made for daily use, we might gain some insight into

the lives of the Tibetan people.

Catalog No. 25, detail

I want to thank the Baylis family for making the collection
available to all of us. Bob and Lois are strong and
impassioned supporters of the arts and give generously

of their time to a number of cultural institutions. They
have been involved with the Rubin Museum of Art since

its inception and continue to work on its behalf. Thanks
must also be given to Martin Brauen and Rebecca Bloom
for curating the exhibition and to the staff of the museum
for presenting it so beautifully. Iam grateful to Diana
Myers for her fine introduction and to Thomas Cole for
his informative and engaging essay and descriptions of each
rug. Even these two distinguished authors have differing
opinions on some aspects of Tibetan rugs, underscoring
the need for more research in this little-studied field. Bruce
M. White’s stunning photographs and Phil Kovacevich’s
elegant design greatly enhance the experience of learning
about Tibetan rugs, and Martina D’Alton’s and Neil

Liebman’s sensitive editing is appreciated.

ROBERT M. BAYLIS

MY WIFE, LOIS, AND | FIRST VISITED TIBET IN 1986, where
we were immediately drawn to the artistry of Tibetan rugs.
Excited by the discovery of these unusual knotted pile-
woven carpets, with their mysterious designs and symbols,
we bought a carpet from a man who was carrying it under
his arm behind the Jokhang Temple in Lhasa. This led

to a collection as we became beguiled by the simplicity

and playfulness of some and the majesty of others. Since
that time our sense of joy in these objects has grown, and
they have become an important part of our household,
covering walls, floors, and hallways. Our love for these rugs
is now shared by other family members, whose homes are
decorated with them as well. This appreciation for one
form of Tibetan artistic expression also piqued our interest
in and brought us closer to other aspects of the culture
that created it, and now this catalog and the exhibition it
accompanies offer us the chance to share a window into

Tibetan life with a wide audience.

The knotted pile-woven carpets are an integral part of the
Tibetan daily life, as Tom Cole details in his essay. The
designs and symbols on these weavings are representative
of Tibetan life, although today we cannot always be
certain of the weaver’s intent. The Tibetan Plateau was a
crossroad for traders, a region where nomadic people and
many cultures came in contact. Life there was influenced
by neighboring China and Nepal as early as the seventh-
century reign of the Tibetan king Srong-Btsan Sgam-Po,
and cross-cultural influences can be identified in the rug-

making traditions of the region.

Catalog No. 48, detail

The types of carpets vary from saddle rugs—both makden
(which went under the saddle) and masho (on top of the
saddle)—to square mats (khagangma) and sleeping rugs
(khaden). The latter were sometimes designed as a flayed
tiger skin and used in a monastery in place of a real tiger
skin, a prestige item. Dating early Tibetan rugs is difficult,
but saddle rugs were probably in use by the tenth or
eleventh century and are depicted occasionally in the old

thangkas (scroll paintings).

In general the decoration of Tibetan rugs and the
techniques employed in their making are less sophisticated
than those of some other cultures. Tibetan rugs do not
have the disciplined, repetitive pattern of a fine Persian rug
with its tight precise knots; they are more loosely woven.
Although there are a number of standard shapes and sizes,
the range of colors and design is extraordinarily broad.

The color of the wool may show great variety within the
same piece. In some cases this is caused by changes in the
dye bath during the course of the project. The weaver may
also have simply run out of material or changed his or her
mind. Symbols, although sometimes crudely drawn, are
everywhere—flaming pearls and jewels, the frog-foot motifs
(see detail, opposite), ritual scepters (vajras), and swastikas.
Although we can recognize and appreciate them, we cannot
always know why they were chosen—what a row of frog-
foot designs, for example, signifies beside a row of pearls.
The Buddhist symbols reflect life in the monasteries. Other
symbols and motifs remind us of the tribal groups that are

scattered over the Himalayas, into India and China.

Tibetan rugs did not come to international attention until
about 1959, when the Dalai Lama left Chinese-occupied
Tibet. By the 1980s, when Lois and I first traveled to Tibet,
they had become more available, but even so, we actually

acquired most of our collection in other parts of the world.

Our goal in this presentation is not so much to promote

Tibetan carpets as an art form but to place them in the

context of Tibetan life. In addition we hope to encourage
the study of Tibetan carpets. There is a tremendous
amount of literature on carpets and rugs from every other
corner of the globe; however, very little study has been
done on these Tibetan weavings, and it is our hope that
this project with the Rubin Museum of Art will be one step

forward in this process.

HINT ROD ILEC TON

DIANA K. MYERS

TIBET'S EXTRAORDINARY MONASTIC ARCHITECTURE and
landscape captivated early Western visitors to the realm.
Inside Tibetan temples and homes, sacred art next drew
visitors’ attention. An even closer look at interiors in Tibet
and in adjacent cultural areas of the Himalayas reveals
secular as well as religious dimensions of ‘Tibetan culture
and aesthetics. Amid brightly decorated wooden cabinets
and tables, painted scroll paintings (thangkas) edged in silk
brocades, and shrines featuring silver and gilt statues and
ritual objects, pile carpets are a common complement—if
frequently unnoticed—to the other decorations of temples,
palaces, farmhouses, and tents. Bob and Lois Baylis noticed
and ever since have delighted in Tibetan carpets as an

essential element of Tibetan life.

Perhaps because Tibetans saw rugs as daily necessities,

the carpets that cushioned low benches for sitting and
sleeping, shielded doorways from drafts, and were
indispensible padding for a horseback-riding society
received little attention in the West until the mid-twentieth
century. Nineteenth-century explorers in Tibet did note
the local production of pile rugs, but as recently as 1965,

an authority on Oriental carpets could state that “examples
of knotted carpet production from Tibet are lacking.”
During the 1960s, however, Tibetan carpets had become
visible outside Tibet: these were new examples, woven by
Tibetan refugees in Nepal with support from the Swiss,
who sought to engage large numbers of refugees in an
income-generating industry that drew on the refugees’ own
cultural traditions. In the 1970s enterprising merchants in

the tourist markets of Kathmandu offered contemporary

rugs as well as modest numbers of older rugs for sale,

some acquired from resident Tibetans, others spirited

from Tibet across Nepal’s northern border. By 1980 old
‘Tibetan carpets were abundant in the Nepalese capital;
with the opening of Tibet’s borders in the early 1980s, even
more rugs appeared and piqued the interest of scholars

and collectors.

The first writers to focus on Tibetan carpets were lovers

of the Himalayas and long-time residents of or frequent
visitors to the region—Aristide Messinesi (1956), Blanche
Olschak (1968), followed by Philip Denwood (1974) and Hal
Kuloy (1982). In 1984 the Textile Museum in Washington,
DC, brought these rugs to a wider audience through its
groundbreaking exhibition and catalog Temple, Household,
Horseback: Rugs of the Tibetan Plateau, with essays by Valrae
Reynolds of the Newark Museum and Arthur Leeper.

In the past twenty years, there have been several other
exhibitions of Tibetan carpets with catalogs or informative
written material, including Fra Temple til Hesterygg den
Tibetanske Teppetradisjonen (Oslo, 1989); Woven fewels:
Tibetan Rugs from Southern California Collections (Pacific
Asia Museum, 1992); La Tigre et Il Fiore de Loto (Museo
Nazionale Preistorico ed Etnografico, Rome, 2001); and
Dragon, Lotus, Snow Lion—Carpets from the Roof of the
World (Volkerkundemuseum, Zurich, 2009). A number of
private dealers and galleries, especially in Europe, have
featured fine Tibetan carpets in smaller exhibitions as well.
Significantly, Trinley Chodrak and Keshang ‘Tashi’s Of
Wool and Loom (2000) is the first publication by Tibetans

on the rugs of their homeland and contains much new and

interesting information.

‘Today, the craft of pile carpet weaving in Tibet is generally
accepted as dating back a thousand or more years, but there
is still little archaeological evidence to say exactly how long
Tibetans have been making rugs. As Tom Cole discusses

in his essay, pile weaving is a very ancient tradition among
cultures in Central and North Asia. Loop-cut pile textiles,
with structures similar to those of Tibetan carpets, excavated
in nearby Qinghai and more recently in Xinjiang date to
1700 BCE. Arthur Leeper, a specialist in the decorative

arts of Asia, argues persuasively, citing archeological data,
interpretations of paintings at Dunhuang, and historical
records (including Tang-dynasty Chinese sources), that the
roots of Tibet’s pile weaving tradition lie in the period of

Tibet's early kings (roughly 650-950 CE).

Throughout the last millennium, Tibet has been isolated
only from a Western perspective, and pile rugs are but
one manifestation of how Tibetan crafts were enriched by
centuries of vibrant cultural exchange. Whether sedentary
or nomadic, Tibetans opted for furnishings that could be
easily folded (like their wooden cabinets, tables, and even
shrines) or rolled (like thangkas and rugs), and moved.
Tibetans also decorated many rugs and furnishings with
the same symbols, drawn from a common inventory of
auspicious and decorative motifs. The color palette of
painted objects and woven rugs is similar and likewise
distinctive—with reds and yellows, blues, greens, and

accents of white.

Through warfare and trade, Tibetans came in contact with
distant cultures and were middlemen for luxury goods from
as far away as Iran on one hand and China on the other.

In the seventh to ninth century CE, Tibetan court dress
depicted in paintings and sculptures featured Persian-style
robes and headgear. Metalwork of that period also reflects
Persian Sogdian and Sassanian influences. It is thus no

surprise that Tibetan arts and crafts shared some design

elements of “pan-Asian” iconography: even the triple
pearls so closely associated with Chinese textiles show up
in chintamani patterns woven thousands of miles away

in Turkey.

While some motifs and aesthetic conventions in Tibetan
rugs are clearly of Chinese origin and others are said to be
of Sassanian inspiration, it is equally probable that some
motifs were of purely Tibetan origin and subsequently
borrowed by adjacent cultures. We have no idea, for
instance, what the repertoire of weavers in East Turkestan
was during the period of Tibetan occupation, which
ended in the late tenth century. Although there is good
reason to assume it changed when the region converted
to Islam, perhaps it preserved design elements that were
originally influenced by the Tibetan administration

and the officials who ordered or purchased carpets locally.
As another example, a cut-loop woolen pile textile

(1700 BCE) excavated in what is now Qinghai Province
in northwestern China is decorated with plain stripes and
stripes criss-crossed to form a natural design. The cross is
the only motif that decorates the tie-dyed woolens noted
in historical annals as products of Tibet, and it is often

incorporated into Tibetan pile rugs as well.

Because rug weaving is a craft rather than a sacred art, weav-
ers, unlike the painters of thangkas or sculptors of religious
images, were free to compose designs and did so with de-
lightful results. The objective in producing Buddhist ritual
art was to conform to an ideal—proportions, colors, and the
accessories of sacred images are all specified. In weaving,
however, there was considerable scope for innovation—as
the Baylis Collection rugs in this exhibition richly illustrate.
While the dimensions, colors, and even the general design
of a carpet might be dictated by a client, weavers were free
to use their imaginations, and they drew on an inventory of
motifs that were religious, auspicious, or simply decorative.
When a weaver used certain motifs that are indisputably sa-
cred, such as the thunderbolt known as a vajra (or dorje; see
the vajras in the border of Cat. No. 17), Tibetans agree that

Catalog No. 17, detail

pen wess eee es sere e ee ee
SNR BO aS RET eoenalgptintnbnntecihat ey ene mailatmatt aisetien

Prete’,

gerne

the rug was often meant to be sat upon by a lama or monk,
as an ordinary person would not presume to sit, much less
walk, on this symbol of enlightenment. However, the mean-
ing of a symbol such as the swastika is entirely different, de-
pending on context: a swastika on a silk hanging in front of a
lama’s throne is a powerful emblem of change and imperma-
nence; in a wedding carpet (see Cat. No. 52), the swastika

invokes good luck for a newlywed couple.

Similarly, motifs with Chinese origins did not maintain

the same meanings for Tibetan weavers, who may have
used the designs because of a shared Buddhist art tradition,
because they admired Chinese luxury goods, or simply
because they liked the designs they saw on imported
porcelain and textiles. Some popular Chinese textile
patterns were faithfully reproduced on Tibetan looms
(such as Cat. Nos. 23, 24, for example). Other motifs, like
the Eight Symbols of Gentlemanly Achievement, were
stylized almost beyond recognition (scrolls and flutes,

for example), because their original significance was
unfamiliar to Tibetan weavers. Still other designs may be
accurately rendered but not understood by Tibetans in

the same way as they were in China. Thus, the vase (see
Cat. Nos. 25 and 50) was important in Chinese art because
its name sounds the same as the word for peace (ping),

but this play on words is entirely unknown to Tibetans
who wove vases into door and sleeping rugs. Butterflies
(signifying joy, summer, and marital bliss for Chinese)

and bats (fu, a homonym for happiness) are other motifs
Tibetan weavers readily adopted—without recognizing
their Chinese significance. Finally, some motifs like flowers
were collectively given a singular significance by Tibetan
weavers. For instance, when asked the name of a particular
flower in a rug, a Tibetan is very likely to call it a lotus, no
matter that it looks like what Chinese might call a peony or
chrysanthemum (see Cat. No. 23). Why a lotus? Tibetans
often will explain that this favorite flower is associated with

Buddhism, as a symbolism of purity and awakening.

What is delightfully
distinctive is the Tibetan
weavers’ individualistic
interpretations of motifs
and eclectic combinations

of patterns—from clouds

and flowers to tiger pelts
and animals—regardless
of the designs’ origins. DOUBLE VAJRA SYMBOL
The animals that animate

Tibetan rugs—peacocks,

tigers, pheasants, cranes, the mythical dragon and snow
lion, and the exceptional elephant!—were completely
unknown to the weavers who depicted them cavorting
across the heavens in pursuit of a pearl of happiness or
grouped to represent the known universe in a cosmological
cohort (see Cat. No. 2). Likewise, cloud-mountain-wave
patterns that frame the space of a rug may have the detailed
spray of flume associated with a Mandarin robe or the
stylized contours of the same pattern on a felted Central
Asian tent. Swastika and meander borders become three-
dimensional in their color schemes. And there is no limit
to the varied medallions that may or may not reflect the
architecture of stupas or the pedestals on which three
principal statues were placed on Buddhist altars, with the
center medallion different from the other two (see Cat.
No. 38). Most charming is how weavers take a set of eight
auspicious objects of Chinese origin and either render them
as nearly abstract objects or combine items from more than
one set of Chinese objects (see the flutes, books, and lotus
flowers in the border of Cat. No. 37).

Among this riot of innovation, there are some uniquely
Tibetan motifs and compositions. One decorative element
is what Tibetans call a “frog’s footprint,” a jagged-edged
lozenge (often white) scattered across a rug’s field

(see Cat Nos. 45-48). Some say this derives from a
rendering of a flaming gem, but the Tibetan name shows

how deeply local culture internalized the motif. Another

geometric motif is the stylized cross, resembling the
patterning of tie-dyed woolens (see Cat. No. 30), which
literally resembles tie-dyed fabrics joined to form sitting
mats. Yet another is the checkerboard or patchwork
pattern (such as Cat. Nos. 32-34). Once thought to be
“sampler” rugs made by novice weavers, the sophisticated
use of perspective and color and fine quality wool in many
examples do not support this hypothesis. Rather, Tibetans
tend to associate such patterns vaguely with the patchwork
shawls worn by monks to recall their vows of poverty. They
also admit that they simply find the patterns appealing—
reason enough for the popularity of this design in the last
century at least (see Cat. No. 32).

Most of the carpets in this exhibition are made with

the typical Tibetan cut-loop pile technique. However,
students of structure, as early as Philip Denwood in 1974,
recognized that Tibetan pile weavings include a variety
of structures—about which we still know relatively little.

Some are associated with specific villages, while others with

longer pile and looser weave
are perhaps more comfortable
for sleeping on.

SULLY

gauge rod

Bob and Lois Baylis came to
appreciate Tibetan rugs as

a window into the Tibetan
lifestyle and individual

expressions of a weaver’s TIBETAN CUT-LOOP PILE

fertile imagination. Because = +¢C}Ny QUE

rugs were needed, made, and

used by so many Tibetans,

each weaving is truly one-of-a-kind, even when the rugs’
designs are similar. Against a backdrop of centuries of
shifting political and cultural influence and vibrant trade,
these pile weavings show a rich variety of motifs, and most
feature the brilliant colors that Tibetans appreciated in all
their arts and crafts. While much scholarship remains to
be undertaken, the rugs in this exhibition offer a wonderful

glimpse into Tibetan interiors—and the Tibetan culture.

ONE OF THE LEAST HOSPITABLE geographic locations on
the planet, the high Tibetan Plateau is generally devoid of
comfort and color (Fig. 1). Foreign travelers to Tibet, past
and present, have found physical comforts to be in short
supply there. But for the local population, as for other
peoples living in equally bleak environments throughout
Central Asia, rich colors are a cherished enhancement to
life and are incorporated wherever possible into otherwise

austere surroundings.

Tibetan people have an inherent affinity for color in

all forms, in all media. When given a choice, they will
naturally favor an eye-dazzling option. The British
explorer/spy Captain Hamilton Bower, writing in 1894,
discovered that “the love of jewelry and ornaments is a
very marked trait in their character, and the amount of
precious metal used up in this way in the country must be
very great indeed.” Personal adornment may include bright
gold-capped teeth, iridescent blue turquoise and deep red
coral beads around the neck, and “on their feet they have

1

stockings of brightly coloured woolen cloth.

There is a difference in attire defined by class. Writing in
1891, another late nineteenth-century Tibetan traveler, the

FIG.1

On the “roof of the world,” taken at an 18,000 foot pass
entering Tibet on the road between Shigatse and the Nepal
border. Photograph by Thomas Cole

THOMAS COLE

American diplomat W. Woodville Rockhill, noted that “the
well to do people wear shirts of coarse unbleached silk of
Indian manufacture, with a high red collar and [silver] half-
rupee pieces as buttons in the case of men, and elaborate
gold buckles and coral buttons mounted with gold or silver

2

for the women.

The nomadic population, the “wildly dressed Dokpas of the
Chang province,” are described in equally colorful detail by
Sarat Chandra Das, an Indian scholar of Tibetan language
and culture who traveled to the plateau in 1879 and again
from 1881 to 1882 (Fig. 2). He found that

the women wear much heavy and fantastic apparel
that one who had not before seen them might
well be taken aback. From a distance these savages
looked as they wished to imitate the peacock’s
gaudy plumes in their costume; they had so

many beads of glass, coral, amber and turquoise
suspended from their headdress that one could

hardly see their faces.’

And, of course, one sees everywhere the solemn, deep-red
and maroon hues in the robes of monks who remain within
the walls of their monasteries or wander the streets and

back alleys of Lhasa and elsewhere.

,&

~

=
-
=

ai

-
_
*
_

FIG. 2

“From behind, one gets a better idea of how well placed they are
in their tribe. Their wealth is braided into their hair in the form of
silver coins, turquois, and other semiprecious stones.” Literature:
A Portrait of Lost Tibet, R. Tung 1996, pl. 82.

Unlike the somber attire of the monks, the temples and
monasteries of Tibet are opulent in adornment and
fantastic in proportion, a visual cacophony of color,
including gold, silver, and bronze objects and finely woven,
brightly colored textiles of Chinese silk. Some are cut

and fashioned into traditional Tibetan-style hangings and
decorations, as well as rugs—covering seats and benches,
occasionally pillars, but rarely floors—adding warmth

and a modicum of comfort. The mid-nineteenth-century
Catholic missionaries Evariste Huc and Joseph Gabet
wrote, “The interior of the temple is usually filled with
ornaments, statues, and pictures [thangkas] illustrating the
life of the Buddah [sic],” and with “idols of colossal stature.”
They also commented on the “rich silk stuffs, covered with
tinsel and gold embroidery, [that] form on the head of the
idols, canopies.”* The elaborate decoration found in the
temples of Tibet never ceased to astonish intrepid Western

travelers who survived the arduous journey into the region.

While physical comfort is generally lacking on the high

and relatively arid plateau, piety is not in short supply.

The Tibetan people have always found solace in their faith,
and spiritual comfort and support are sought in many ways.
Sir Charles Bell of the British Indian Civil Service wrote,
“Every Tibetan has a guardian deity, not a mere vague idea
to comfort the fearful or wayward children, but a living
personality to help and advise him throughout his earthly
life.”* Thus the teachings of the Tibetan form of Buddhism,
having appropriated many of the gods and teachings from
the pre-Buddhist, animist religion of Bon, provide a cushion
and foundation of understanding for the treacherous and

harsh environment in which the people live.

A CROSSROADS OF CULTURES

Tibet has always been considered a mysterious,
semimythical Shangri-la, protected to the south by the
high snow-capped peaks of the Himalayas, to the west and
north by the arid steppes of Central Asia, and to the east,
descending from the plateau, by the craggy hills (and the
equally rough warrior class) of Kham. Despite its seeming
isolation, in reality the high plateau has been a crossroads
of cultures, with an ethnic diversity that is too seldom
mentioned in conventional histories of the region. Over
time, as different ethnic groups, cultural traditions, and
religious as well as mystical beliefs (both Buddhist and
pre-Buddhist) merged, something very different was

created, now recognized as purely Tibetan.

The early history of Tibet is rather obscure, but some
experts, among them Sir Thomas Holdich, superintendent
of frontier surveys in British India and later president of
the Royal Geographical Society, have offered an interesting
perspective. According to Holdich, writing in the early
twentieth century, “When man made his first appearance
we need not ask, but there can be no reasonable doubt

that the Tibetan is the latest survival of the ancient

FIG. 3

Women selling rugs in the Gyantse bazaar
Literature: C. Bell 1991.

‘Turko-Mongol stock which once prevailed through all
high Asia.”° Others, such as the distinguished French
historian René Grousset, have mentioned the early Yuezhi
or Tokharian people as key components of the diverse
ethnographic composition of the Tibetans, having dated
their arrival on the plateau to about the first century BCE.’
The Italian Tibetologist Giuseppe Tucci pointed out that
“links of this kind are indeed probable, for there were
undoubtedly contacts between Tibet (particularly western
Tibet) and the Iranian cultures at a very early date, and it is
likely that artistic and decorative themes would pass from

Iran to Tibet as a result of migrations and trade.”

The pan-Asian silk trade must also have made an

impression on local artisans, as it did on those who lived

with these exotic textiles. Spending time in a monastery,
another early traveler, the eighteenth-century Scottish
adventurer and diplomat George Bogle, listened as the
resident lama “explained to me some of the paintings,
and marked the different countries from which the silks

overhead had come.”’

Tibetans have always been avid and shrewd traders (Figs.
3-4). According to Charles Bell, “Tibetan society falls into
two classes; the landed gentry on one side, the peasantry
and shepherds on the other. The trading community
stands between the two, still almost all the people from
time to time engage in commerce. For the Tibetan is a
born trader.”'° Trade with the people of adjacent regions
must inevitably have exposed the Tibetans to a range of
design and aesthetic compositions, influencing the manner
in which they expressed themselves within varying artistic

media, including weaving.

. = Js
ae ai = SR WARIS
ae eee eS

FIG. 4

Carpets for sale in Tsang Province, 1905
Literature: The Tibetan Carpet, P. Denwood 1974 fig 78.

The geography of Tibet did not encourage outsiders to
visit—even today the journey is arduous. After the British
in India launched the Younghusband expedition (1903-4)
to open trade routes to Lhasa by force, their presence on
the Tibetan Plateau was discouraged because they were
truly foreigners and previous contacts with Europeans

had been a source of discomfort.'’ Many Europeans who
arrived in Tibet had been missionaries who in George
Bogle’s words “bred disturbances and had to be turned out

of the country.”””

Other traders, however, had long frequented the plateau,
including the “trading pilgrims of India . . . in great
numbers... . The Kalmuks [Manchurians], who with their
wives and families, annually repair in numerous tribes today
to pay their devotions at the Lama’s shrines, bring their
camels loaded with furs and other Siberian goods. The
Bhutanese . . . enabled their situation to supply it [Tibet]
as well with the commodities of Bengal... . The people

of Assam furnish it with the coarse manufactures of their
kingdom. . . . And thus Lhasa . . . is the resort of strangers
and the centre of communication between distant parts of

the world.”? Unlike the European travelers, these Asian

20

FIG. 5

Carpet weaving at Penjor Lhunpo, 1933
Literature: The Tibetan Carpet, P. Denwood 1974, fig. 13.

traders were not proselytizing but merely were engaging in
mutually beneficial commerce, sharing their wealth, and, in

turn, reaping the rewards that trade with Tibet had to offer.

Accounts of travel to Tibet commonly describe a mixture of
peoples of different tribes and dialects. Even as late as the
mid-twentieth century “nomadic peoples comprised 48%
of the population of Tibet. There were seven tribal groups
of nomads,” but with “certain customs and a way of life
common to all the nomadic tribes of Tibet”’* As observed
by Huc and Gabet in the mid-nineteenth century, however,
“within a few days march of Lha-ssa, the exclusively
nomadic character of the Thibetians gradually disappears.
Already, a few cultivated fields adorn the desert and houses
insensibly take the place of black tents. At length, the
shepherds vanish altogether and you find yourself amidst an

agricultural people.”

It is within the context of this ethnographic mosaic that

early travelers recorded what they saw and felt upon

entering the forbidden “Land of the Lamas.” Their
comments, when carefully considered, reveal significant
details of life on the plateau prior to the Younghusband
expedition, not to mention the more recent Chinese
invasions in 1950 and 1959.

THE TIBETAN RUG-WEAVING TRADITION

Weaving has been known to the people of the high
plateau for a considerable time (Fig. 5). Archaeological
evidence suggests that clay spindle whorls existed during
the Neolithic period. The pastoral lifestyle of the early
inhabitants of the plateau must have encouraged the
processing of wool, but there is no evidence to date to
support an equally early appearance of woven covers,

much less pile rugs.

The oldest pile carpet known, dating to approximately

the fifth century BCE, is in the Hermitage Museum,

St. Petersburg, Russia. It was unearthed from the frozen
Pazyryk burial mounds in the Altai region of present-day
Siberia.'® Other pile weavings of a similarly ancient vintage
have been discovered in Egypt as well as in the Taklamakan
Desert in Central Asia. It is reasonable to assume that

pile weaving in Tibet also had an early start. Certainly the
method in which Tibetan rugs were and still are made—an
unusual cut-loop technique—is an old one, presently used
solely in Tibet, but previously identified in ancient weavings

from Egypt and other Central Asian locales.

In Temple, Household, Horseback: Rugs of the Tibetan Plateau,
Diana Myers, who has written the introduction to the
present catalog, included a rug with a medallion design
that had been collected in Tibet in the mid-1880s by

the scholar/diplomat W. Woodville Rockhill.'”? The
Rockhill rug, now in the collection of the Smithsonian
Institution National Museum of Natural History, has a
single medallion floating freely on a plain blue field

(Fig. 6). But Rockhill, once the United States

FIG. 6

Rockhill saddle rug

Shigatse, Tibet

Cloth quilted, with yak-hair fringe

101.6 x 71 cm (40 x 28 in.)

Catalogue No. E167206 Department of Anthropology,
Smithsonian Institution

Commissioner to China, makes no mention of rugs
anywhere in his extremely detailed Tibetan travelogue and
was apparently unconcerned with much of the material
culture of Tibet, despite the fact that he accumulated a

fine collection of art during his years in China. Instead, the
focus of his text explores the ethnography and geography of

the region.

21

Somewhat earlier, Sarat Chandra Das took more notice

of rugs and apparently purchased at least one, writing

in his travel memoir, “We came to the village of Targye,
where we stopped in the house of an old man... . He had
manufactured some rugs, and I bought one from him for a
couple of rupees.”'* Unfortunately, it was not preserved for
posterity, and Das offered no information as to the design.
However, this reference allows us safely to assume a village
origin for certain Tibetan rugs. Others were undoubtedly
made in workshops established by a wealthy urban class.
Das commented that “the Chyag-dso-pa of Gyantse

has under his superintendence a large rug and blanket
factory in which about ninety women are kept constantly
employed, some picking the wool, some dyeing it and
others weaving.”!’ From these workshops, rugs for the

landed gentry as well as monastic communities emerged.

Throughout the “rug-belt” of Central Asia, tribal and
nomadic groups produce flat-woven items as well as pile
rugs. Evidence for this weaving tradition in Tibet is not
difficult to find but has been too often overlooked. There is
a continuing myth regarding the nomadic lifestyle, as many
imagine the Tibetans to be constantly in motion, with no
permanent settlements. But reality presents a much less
romantic view. Communities may have migrated between
summer and winter pastures for their flocks of sheep, goats,
and yaks, but they also established stable home bases,
especially for the women and children as the men tended
the livestock. Entire villages were engaged in this manner,
with no opportunity to work the land given the extreme
altitude, inclement weather, and rocky soil. Pile weaving

to mimic the furs on which they slept was practiced among
tribal and nomadic groups throughout Central Asia. Daily
routine was conducive to the use of certain types of rugs,

and special occasions demanded luxury examples.

Accounts of nomadic life may not explicitly describe people
engaged in making rugs, but there are references to weaving
as well as allusions to pile rugs. In Charles Bell’s words,

“Along the walls, or stacked so as to form recesses, we shall

22

find our friends’ daily needs: cooking utensils, buckets and
churns, rugs, saddles and leather bags containing food.”
Some members of the group Bell encountered “stay in and
around the tents, making the butter and cheese, spinning
and weaving wool.””? The highland wool of Tibet is
renowned and has been a commodity in which the pastoral
herdsmen of the region have actively traded, probably for
many centuries. Bell noted that “the chief products of Tibet
exported to other countries are wool, yak tails, hides, the

021

soft under-wool [pashmina] of the shawl-wool goats.

With an unusual lustrous quality fostered by the high
altitude at which the animals live, the wool is considered
ideal for the production of pile rugs. The natural product
is commonly white (or cream colored, and subsequently
dyed) and less often brown or black.” It is relatively rare to
find this natural-colored dark wool in carpets from Tibet.
Instead these wool stuffs are over-dyed, sometimes quite
subtly, with other colors such as red or blue. The luster
of the wool is ideal for imparting depth and clarity to the
applied color, with a lovely result if the dyes have been
properly prepared with the correct mordants (adhesive
agents of varying mineral sources used to facilitate the

absorption of the color into the wool).

It is very rare to find cotton used to form a design in

pile, but there is one example of its use in the Baylis
Collection (see Cat. No. 42). In later rugs, cotton is seen
in the foundation—the ground-weave of warps and
wefts—especially in examples woven during the
commercial period of rug production in Tibet, from

the late nineteenth century to the present. The cotton
usually consists of a commercial machine-spun product,
gathered in trade. Hand-spun cotton, indicating an
earlier date (mid-nineteenth century or before), is seldom

seen in the warps or wefts of Tibetan rugs.

The Tibetan penchant for surrounding themselves with
color is nowhere more evident than in their rugs, and as

soon as synthetic dyestuffs were introduced to Tibet in

the late nineteenth century, the weavers embraced the
new technology, resulting in the gaudy palette found in
later rugs from the region. Traditionally the Tibetans
made good use of what was naturally available to them.
The bleak environs of the plateau yielded mineral and
plant sources for various colors, including red (madder
root), brown (walnut husks), and yellow (from turmeric,
barberry, and chutsa, a high-altitude member of the rhubarb
family). These dyestuffs were usually gathered by nomadic
herders and bartered for whatever they needed from the
sedentary population. As inveterate traders, these nomads
would bring goods collected from the countryside to the
urban and village markets, taking advantage of a lucrative
trade in rock salt as well as dyestuffs for town-based dyers
and weavers. Das made a reference to this kind of trade,
writing that “the tso, or dye plant grows in rocky soil and
is collected by the Dokpas [nomads]. It supplies a beautiful

yellow colour.””

Indigo dye for blue was a luxury item imported from India
over many centuries, while other exclusive (and more
costly) dyes, notably the scarlet dye known as lac (from
insect secretions), which came from Bhutan along with
special artisans who prepared it for local use. Huc and
Gabet noted that “among the foreigners settled at Lha-
ssa, the Pebouns [Indians from the vicinity of Bhutan]
are the most numerous” and “are also the dyers” of that
city. Considered master craftsmen in metallurgy as well
as dyeing, they produced materials that “never lose their
colour.”** With such prowess at their craft, they were not
allowed to dye imported cloth, but only woolen materials
native to Tibet, a government decree designed to protect

indigenous production.

FORM AND FUNCTION

Hospitality to travelers and strangers is a prerequisite of
life throughout the steppes of Central Asia and is widely

practiced all over Tibet. Rugs were an essential part of

welcoming visitors. Arriving at a remote village, Das wrote
that he “was received by an old woman . . . and shown by
the servant up a flight of stone steps to the top floor, where
rugs were spread for us. . . . The rugs in this room were
made of the finest panam wool, and were the best articles of

9925

furniture in the house.

It is possible the rugs he describes were khagangma, small
square mats that were made specifically for use in greeting
special guests to even the most humble Tibetan villager’s
home. The poorest homes contained pile weavings, which
were not just reserved for guests but also used for sleeping
and thus considered a necessity rather than a luxury. Das’s
entry into a Tibetan house would have been followed by
the offer of tea (often po cha, a butter tea made with butter,
black tea, salt, milk, and hot water, with a high caloric
content suitable for work at high altitude) or, in modern

times for the foreign guest, just hot water.

Sleeping rugs, known as khaden, are found in every

abode, regardless of class, both secular and ecclesiastic.
Traditionally these rugs measure approximately three by
five feet. In the later part of the twentieth century, they
would be stacked on low, narrow wooden platforms on
which the owner would rest at night. Less affluent Tibetans
might have only one rug on which to sleep, while wealthier
villagers might use as many as six or seven, one on top of
the other, as a luxurious cushion for the weary at the end of

a long day.

Traditionally, rugs in Tibet were not used on floors. The
harsh environs and rough lifestyle of many Tibetans
precluded such use. Structurally, these pile weavings were
not durable, being loosely woven with only perfunctory
selvage wrapping and little resistance to unraveling. In an
attempt to remedy this intrinsic problem, a cloth binding
was commonly used on the sides and ends, an element
unseen in weaving cultures from adjacent areas such as
Mongolia, Gansu, and Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang), where

more stable weaving techniques were employed.

23

True floor rugs, known as saden, appear in large formats

(6 by 9 feet) but are often woven in two sections, as looms
were seldom built to cover such a width (see Cat. No. 12).
Occasionally larger rugs of this type made in one piece are
found, apparently woven on workshop looms designed
specifically for this purpose. Though usually considered

a later workshop product, an early reference to their use

in Tibet appears in the biography of Milarepa, an eleventh-
century saint and poet whose writings provide the
foundation for much of the legend and myth surrounding

his life and teachings.”

The monastic community of Tibet was ubiquitous

and powerful in all respects. Religion has been closely
integrated into the Tibetan psyche, making it difficult at
times to distinguish religious belief from ancient myth
and superstition. The ancient belief system most likely
employed both theory and symbolism that was later
appropriated into Buddhist teachings and art after the
seventh century CE, when Buddhism was introduced by

Songsten Gampo.

The large monastery halls as well as the living quarters

of the monks and lamas were made more comfortable
with pile weavings, which were either supplied to them

by traders or generous donors or were commissioned by
affluent monastic communities. Long runners, square
mats—often with the crossed-vajra motif—and sleeping
rugs apparently reserved for use by lamas and the clergy
were and still are in use throughout Tibet. Huc and Gabet
noted that “around the temple are long tables almost level
with the ground, a sort of ottomans covered with carpet,”

referring to what we call monastic runners.’’

Additionally, particular design types were apparently
reserved for sleeping rugs khaden (sleeping rugs) among the
ecclesiastic community, as can be seen in photographs from
the early twentieth century.’* Perhaps not surprising, there
are few early images capturing the pomp and ceremony

within the walls of these very private monasteries and

24

FIG. 7

Tibetan lama seated on a carpet of geometical design on a raised
platform at the side of his room
Literature: The Tibetan Carpet, P. Denwood 1974, fig.7A.

fewer still of the living quarters belonging to monks

and lamas (Fig. 7).

There are also many square mats (khagangma) that do
not feature Buddhist iconography but could have been
used by monks and lamas, some merely designating a
special place for a personage of lofty status, while others,
including those with the crossed-vajra design, serving
within the monastic halls during ceremonies. Romantic
imaginations sometimes replace sound reasoning, and
the term “meditation mat” is used much too freely,
suggesting that all square mats are the special property

of the religious communities.

Pile-woven door rugs were also used in Tibet, primarily

within the monastery compounds. Secular homes were

FIG. 8

“Horsemen dressed in the uniforms of Mongolian cavalry ride out
to the Trapachi Plain. They will participate in contests of skill on
horseback—including shooting at targets while riding at full gallop.
Literature: A Portrait of Lost Tibet R. Tung, 1996, pl. 112.

usually decorated with appliqué cloth coverings that were
patterned after the more elaborate door rugs of the monas-
tery. Some door rugs of extraordinary size have been seen
in recent times. These heavy and coarsely knotted carpets

once covered the large entryways of the monastery halls.

The horse culture of the Central Asian steppes, in a
localized form, flourished in Tibet, accounting for many
types of utilitarian weavings. Some Tibetan nomads were
engaged in and “addicted to the pastoral life,”’’ but,
according to George Bogle, “they are great sportsmen,
and both men and women are constantly in the saddle.”*°
Rockhill wrote that the “Kamba are exceptionally fine

horsemen, much more graceful than even the Mongols.”?!

These elegant horsemen placed rugs both under and over
their fine saddles, like equestrians throughout Central
Asia (Fig. 8).

The larger horse covers in the Baylis Collection are nearly
all of a later vintage, dating to the twentieth century. The
presence of synthetic dyes in most examples suggests
manufacture in commercial workshops, which were
supported by the rising affluence of the landed gentry in the
late nineteenth century. Such covers must have been used
solely by high-ranking officials and monks and lamas, with
the small number of surviving examples indicating limited
production. As most are found in good condition, they
likely would have been reserved for special occasions and

festival days rather than for everyday use.
Weddings do not seem to have been among the special
occasions that demanded presentation of rugs or textiles

for the dowry or for use during the marriage ceremony.

25

According to Charles Bell, the bride’s parents usually give
“ornaments and to a lesser extent . . . clothes and money.”
He also suggests that a special cloth might be used on

the pony when the bride is taken to her new home: “She
rides away on a mare with a foal, for this is a lucky sign.
Her saddle cloth must be an especially good one.”*” This
may account for the great number of old saddle rugs that
have been well preserved and subsequently appeared in the
marketplaces of Lhasa, Shigatse, and Kathmandu. Other
small weavings were made for the equestrian culture,
including flat-woven and pile trappings or ties, in addition
to the well-known forehead trappings (thongkheb, Fig. 9).
Woven in an unusual shape to mimic the silhouette of

an animal head, thongkheb are often found decorated

with auspicious symbols appropriated from Buddhist
iconography in addition to more common motifs such as
flowering vases and tiger stripes. Used as talismans

to ensure good luck, they were sometimes reserved by
traders for the lead horse or mule in caravans crossing

treacherous terrain.

DESIGN AND SYMBOLISM

The wealth of design found in Tibetan rugs is readily
apparent in the Baylis Collection. Patterns range from
cartoonlike drawings of animals, birds, mountains, and
flowers to a more restrained designs such as medallions
of varying types recalling the tribal and workshop
production of adjacent areas in Central Asia. Few if any
of these nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Tibetan
weavers likely understood the history of what they were
portraying. They copied designs familiar to them, as they
lived surrounded by older rugs (as well as textiles) that
had decorative and practical functions in their homes.
‘Traditions die as hard in Central Asia as elsewhere, and
the peculiarly stark environment of the Tibetan Plateau
encouraged artisans to remain true to their imaginative
and artistic roots in creating a distinctive Tibetan art form,

whether their thangkas, bronze statues, or wool rugs.

26

FIG. 9
Forehead trapping (thongkheb). Courtesy of John Wertime

The monastic communities also encouraged strict
adherence to tradition, as it was through the piety of the
masses that the clergy persevered, both by receiving one
son from every family to become a monk and by accepting
generous donations inspired by the fervent belief in the
institution. Whether settled agrarian villagers or nomadic
shepherds and horsemen, Tibetans maintained altars in
their homes or tents, greeting itinerant monks with the
deepest respect and warm hospitality, “for where will you

find the meanest abode without its shrine?”*’

Many patterns seen in Tibetan rugs retain religious
significance (or at least have sacred origins), despite the fact
that weaving predates the introduction of Buddhism into
Tibet. Weaving and textile arts have never been considered
as important as the classical or religious art of the region.
The vajra motif of Tibetan Buddhism is common. It

typifies decoration for what we normally identify as rugs

intended for religious use (see Cat. No. 17). Though
sometimes equated with the tenets of Tantric Buddhism,
the vajra is a symbol of the impenetrable, indestructible
state of enlightenment of buddhahood. Usually seen as
a single element used in the form of a ritual scepter, or
“thunderbolt” as it is often called, it recalls analogous
elements from other ancient civilizations, including the

hammer of Thor and the scepter of the Greek god Zeus.

The term vajra has even been used to describe one of

the chosen paths to enlightenment, namely Vajrayana
Buddhism. The crossed vajra represents the five archetypal
buddhas and the five directions over which they hold sway.
Indra, king of the gods and god of war, thunder, and rainfall
in Hindu mythology, wielded a powerful weapon, a crossed
vajra, to slay innumerable hostile demons, to control the
natural forces of thunder and lightning, and to assist with
the arrival of the monsoon rains and nurturing of the land.
Legend has it that Buddha Shakyamuni seized this powerful
weapon from Indra, and removed some its more lethal
qualities, transforming it into an instrument of peace. But
its associations with thunderbolts and heavenly forces have
not been forgotten and remain relevant within the context
of Tibetan Buddhism and the rugs made for the clergy

(see Cat. No. 55).

The swastika is an ancient auspicious symbol, possibly
making its first appearance as early as 5500 BCE on
Anatolian pottery of Asia Minor,** as well as on ancient
stone seals from about 4000 to 3000 BCE.** The swastika
has been viewed as a spinning cross or pinwheel, with the
arms of the cross bent to simulate this movement around
a central point. One author speculated that the center of
this spinning cross represents the North Star with the
constellations in motion.* In concert with the significance
of the crossed-vajra motif, the celestial connotations of

these two patterns are difficult to dismiss.

Another popular symbol associated with Buddhist

iconography in Tibetan art, the endless-knot motif also

predates the advent of Buddhist thought and design,
appearing as early as 2000 BCE on stone seals from
Central Asia.*” As one of the Eight Auspicious Symbols of
Buddhism, the endless knot was appropriated to symbolize
the endless cycle of life with birth, death, and rebirth, the
opposing forces and their ultimate interaction, or possibly
the intertwining of wisdom and compassion. Appropriation
of ancient symbols into Buddhist art and theory ensured

an easier transition for its followers from pre-Buddhist
thought and theory to the precepts of their new rulers, who
embraced Buddhism as a unifying factor in establishing

political hegemony.

Tibetan rugs are also replete with images of real and
mythical animals, often highly stylized. Perhaps first and
foremost of these are tiger-pelt designs or images of tigers
(see Cat. Nos. 10-13). The tiger, a symbol of power,

is depicted in the textile art of many different cultures
throughout Asia. The use of actual animal pelts in these
cultures was common, indicating social stature and political
and/or ecclesiastical power. To have conquered such a
strong and fearsome beast and to use its pelt to sit upon
was perhaps the most emphatic statement a person could
make to impress both his peers and/or his vassal subjects.
Tibetan officials, often part of the monastic community,
would sit on tiger pelts (and presumably on rugs simulating
pelts), using them as “audience” carpets to signify their
elevated status. Huc and Gabet wrote, “At the far end of
the apartment, simply furnished, we perceived a personage
sitting with crossed legs on a thick cushion covered with a

tigers skin: it was the Regent.”**

Though it may seem contradictory that the Buddhist
culture of Tibet would tolerate the unnecessary killing of
animals for such a purpose, the Tibetans are not committed
to this proscription. The rocky soil and extreme altitude of
most of the country cannot support agriculture to any great
extent, with “yaks meat, mutton, barley cheese” *” forming

the staple of the ordinary Tibetan’s diet.

27

Rugs with tiger-pelt designs or depictions of tigers have
often been linked with the clergy, but pelts or tiger rugs
are not associated with religious function or ceremony

but rather function as power symbols for men of political
and social stature who also held a lofty position in the
monastic hierarchy.* They took full advantage of their
elevated status, ensuring all would see their opulent symbol
of power. To tame the lethal strength of a tiger, one must
also possess abilities far beyond those of the common

man. Thus members of the theocracy (and the local elite)
embraced the use of tiger (and leopard) pelts as well as rugs

woven with these designs.

The literal depiction of animals is fairly common in Tibetan
rugs, although it is usually associated with examples from

a later period. The lion, of course, is a sacred symbol in
ancient cultures, including Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as
well as farther east in Persia and India, and it is one of
Buddhism’s more potent symbols, associated with strength

and power.

Elephants, often portrayed in both Hindu and Buddhist
temple art, are rarely encountered in Tibetan rugs, an
exception being the example in the Baylis Collection (see
Cat. No. 2). This magnificent beast represents the strength
of the mind in Buddhism as well as the calm majesty of
those who pursue a path of enlightenment. They are
incredibly strong creatures, and their place at the base of
huge temples in India is not surprising, as they uphold the
principles and virtues of the spiritual journey chosen by

those on the path of Buddhism.

Avian imagery appears in many art forms throughout
Central Asia, including Tibetan rugs (see Cat. Nos. 18-22).
The idea of flight has always been fascinating, and birds
have assumed a symbolic importance in art and myth.

The mythical phoenix is often seen in conjunction with its
antithesis, the dragon, a classic theme echoed in textile art
throughout Eurasia. The juxtaposition of these symbols

most likely represents opposing male/female aspects of

28

nature or, perhaps, the yin/yang aspects of life. Another
bird commonly encountered in Tibetan rugs is the crane,
traditionally a harbinger of good luck. In the West the
crane, or stork, carries newborn babies to their parents, and
in China the crane often bears a goddess on its back. Birds
are occasionally drawn with what appears to be saddlery on
their backs, as if intended to carry someone or something.
As intermediaries between the earth and heaven, birds are
part of a celestial iconography that was important to many
of the weavers of rugs and textiles throughout Asia, and the

Tibetan adherence to this tradition was unwavering.

Because Buddhism developed within the context of an
established Hindu tradition, Hindu mythology has been

a source of designs for Tibetan Buddhist iconography.

The garuda, the mythical eaglelike mount of Vishnu, for
example, is found in Buddhist art from Southeast Asia to
India to Tibet, where it is considered to represent longevity

and power as well as to be a symbol of contentment.

Perhaps the most beloved animal found in Tibetan rugs

is the mythical snow lion, which was also featured on the
national flag beginning in about 1912 (outlawed by the
Chinese in 1959 but still in use). It is often shown cavorting
in a playful manner and occasionally striking a more
serious, fearsome pose (see Cat. Nos. 1-5). This beast,
usually with a white body and colorful mane (blue or green
being typical), is frequently found in pairs, supporting the
throne on which the Buddha may be seated. On the former
Tibetan national flag, a pair of confronting snow lions held
the three flaming jewels, symbolizing the cornerstones of
Buddhist philosophy—the Buddha, the Dharma (Buddhist
teachings), and the Sangha (Buddhist community). The
rising sun of the flag was consistent with the snow lion as a

symbolic guardian residing in the east.

Other mythical beasts appear, but none more often than the
dragon, which appears in the mythology of diverse cultures
from the Far East Japan, Korea, and China) to Europe

(see Cat. Nos. 14-17). A powerful symbol associated with

FIG. 10

Elephant sculptures from the Bellur Temple Complex, Karnataka,
India. Photography courtesy of Milousahka Ilona

regenerative waters in China, the dragon may have been
viewed as a benevolent beast by Tibetans. These scaly
reptilian creatures can be seen cavorting in the clouds,
flying without wings, a celestial beast rather than of the
earth where mere mortals walked. If not depicted alone,
in concert with other dragons, or in pursuit of the flaming
jewel, they are shown in confrontation with the equally

mythical phoenix.

The checkerboard design appears in many rugs from
Tibet and less often in rugs from other weaving cultures
throughout Central Asia and the Near East (see

Cat. Nos. 33-34). Some have speculated that these are
practice rugs, woven by artisans familiarizing themselves
with weaving techniques, but this cannot be so, given the
exceptionally fine wool and dyes used in some examples.
The checkerboard design, when broken down, is merely
an arrangement of interlocking and contiguous crosses.

These may be viewed as a universal talisman to ensure good

luck and ward off the evil eye. Some of these checkerboard

designs evolved into isolated crosses in both rugs and
textiles. Known as a tigma pattern, seen more often in tie-
dyed woolen textiles used as seat covers and saddlery, it is
rarely executed within the medium of pile rugs, other than
as field motifs.

Rug patterns featuring a central medallion or multiple
medallions are found throughout the weaving world of
Central Asia, the Far East, and the Near East

(see Cat. Nos. 35-49). The significance of this recurring
design formula has not been fully investigated, despite its
widespread occurrence. Until quite recently, conventional
wisdom suggested that the designs of Tibetan rugs were
derivative of the more formal Chinese weaving tradition,
with no distinctive artistic legacy, tradition, or identity.
Recurring themes in Chinese rugs almost invariably appear
in Tibetan counterparts. This notion was challenged only
when a substantial corpus of Tibetan rugs appeared on
the world market in the mid-1980s, when there was a
mass migration of Tibetan pilgrims to India to attend the

Kalachakra ceremony presided over by the Dalai Lama.

29

They brought with them rugs in unprecedented numbers,
some bearing designs that had not previously been seen

by even the most ardent students of the art. Many were
characterized by a coarser weave as well as all-natural

dyes and were decorated with simple medallions, in direct
contrast to the rugs that had previously appeared on the
market and formed the basis of most collections up to then.
The earliest documented acquisition of a Tibetan rug, the

“Rockhill” rug mentioned above, bears such a design.

For the most part, these medallions are similar. Many are

drawn in such a way that the primary lines of the design are
not emphasized, forcing one to study the reciprocal pattern
formed by those lines—the positive and negative spaces—as

the ground color of the medallion itself forms an equally

fascinating pattern. This illusion was apparently intentional.

As in later rugs from throughout Central Asia, the space
became increasingly cramped, so that the image of the two
patterns combined into one disappears or is more difficult

to discern.

These medallions appear throughout the art of tribal
groups that lack close ethnographic kinship or geographic
proximity. Ancient history reveals, however, that the
migrations of different groups followed parallel courses.
Some groups migrated from farther east and eventually
settled on the Tibetan Plateau, while others chose different
routes, establishing themselves in the grasslands of Central
Asia, including Turkestan to the west of what is now the

Tibet Autonomous Region.

Some medallion designs appear to be copied from or

at least influenced by a Chinese model more often
encountered in silk textiles. The inspiration for that
pattern, though, may stem from a much earlier model,
possibly from the round, polished bronze mirrors that have
been excavated throughout East Turkestan and are still
used in Tibet today. Such mirrors were thought to be the
property of seers, as can be seen in photographs from the

1940s of a prophesier known as the Oracle of Nechung.*!

30

FIG. nn

A nomad family on the vast expanses of Chang Tang in northeastern
Tibet. The head of the family (left) was sixty-five, and he had a
young wife and six children.

The inscribed designs on these round, cast-bronze mirrors
often resemble the floral medallions seen in both Ming

textiles from China and later Tibetan rugs.

These same general forms could perhaps have been
patterned after the floor plan of stupas (reliquaries), which
are echoed in the shape of the mandalas seen in Tibetan
religious paintings. Believed to be a representation of the
cosmos, a complete stupa is actually a three-dimensional
representation of these mandalas, which were subsequently
rendered in two-dimensional religious paintings.”

Other medallions resemble the stepped polygon patterns
more commonly encountered in rugs from farther west,
including those of the Uzbek and Turkmen weaving groups.
The tribal history and identity of the Turkmen has been
well documented, and as the acknowledged master weavers
of Central Asia, they formulated various motifs—notably
the gol (literally, flower)—that arguably represent the

artistic zenith of these distinctive designs.

The exposed foundations of a ruined building at an
excavation site in Turkestan (in present-day Turkmenistan,

outside the old city of Merv), when viewed from the air,

FIG. 12

Children seated on a Tibetan rug in their home; Lhasa, 1989.
Photograph by Thomas Cole

is similar in shape to a certain type of medallion seen in
rugs from that region. The building was presumed to

be of religious significance, used for ceremonies to
commune with the gods and the universe. The medallion
motif as a cosmological representation appears to be a
recurring theme in the search for significance in design,
an idea spanning the breadth of Central Asia from Tibet
to Anatolia.

Described as a ubiquitous folk art, rugs are one of the more
accessible art forms to emerge from Tibet. One need not
be a student of Buddhist iconography or a practitioner

of the faith to have an intrinsic understanding of the

beauty and appeal of these rugs. A local craft devoid of

religious significance, at the outset these rugs were made
for domestic use by villagers and pastoral herders. Over
time, the ruling clergy and landed gentry, enriched by trade
with neighboring countries, sponsored rug production,

and the craft evolved. Weavers began incorporating a
variety of influences, primarily from China, and established
workshops favored certain pictorial designs, which were

occasionally mimicked by their village counterparts.

The appeal of Shangri-la—and of the people of this
remote land and their artistry—continues unabated,

yet professional journals and auction catalogs persist

in misidentifying Tibetan rugs and their function with
misleading hyperbole. The simple truth, however, is
often more tantalizing and intellectually provocative. The
Tibetans understand their rugs, value their symbolism,
and have embraced the colorful pictorial images of recent
vintage while continuing to respect the classic austerity of
the older examples. Since about 1986 travel restrictions
have gradually eased for foreigners visiting Tibet and

for Tibetans leaving the country, enabling a clearer
understanding in the West of the cultural confluences of
design and allowing us the rare opportunity to appreciate
the legacy of the weavers from the “Roof of the World.”

31

NOTES

1

10

11

12

13

32

Hamilton Bower, Diary of a Journey Across Tibet (London:
Rivington, Percival and Co., 1894), 281.

William Woodville Rockhill, The Land of the Lamas: Notes of a
Journey through China, Mongolia and Tibet (New York: Century
Company, 1891), 244.

Sarat Chandra Das, Journey to Lhasa and Central Tibet, ed. W.
W. Rockhill (1902; reprint, New Delhi: Cosmo Publications,
1988), 66-67. Das also traveled as a spy for the British.

Evariste Huc and Joseph Gabet, Travels in Tartary, Thibet and
China, 1844-1846, trans. William Halitt (1928; reprint, New
Delhi and Madras: Asian Educational Services, 1988), 106.

Charles Bell, The People of Tibet (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press,
1928), 25.

Sir Thomas Holdich, The Gates of India (London: Macmillan
and Co., 1910), 35.

The Empire of the Steppes-A History of Central Asia, Rene
Grousset (Newark: Rutgers University Press, 1970), 27.

Giuseppe Tucci, Transhimalaya, trans. James Hogarth (Geneva:
Nagel, 1973), pl. 34.

Clement R. Markham, ed., Narratives of the Mission of George
Bogle to Tibet and of the Journey of Thomas Manning to Lhasa,
1876 Cosmos Publications, New Delbi?, 1999), 101.

Bell, People of Tibet, 109, 125.

The so-called Younghusband expedition of 1903 and 1904,
named after Francis Younghusband, the British officer who led
it, was an invasion of Tibet by British Indian forces, seeking to
prevent the Russian Empire from interfering in Tibetan affairs
and thus gaining a base in one of the buffer states surrounding
British India. While British forces were remarkably successful
militarily, politically the invasion was unpopular in Britain,
where it was virtually disowned after the war. The effects on
Tibet, despite greater casualties and some economic disruption,
were also not significant, and any changes were not long

retained.
Markham, Narratives of the Mission of George Bogle, 138.

Ibid., 124-25.

14

15

16

17

18
19
20
21

22

23
24
25
26
27

28

29

30
31
32
33
34

See Rosemary Jones Tung, A Portrait of Lost Tibet (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980), 105. This volume includes
1940s photographs taken by Ilya Tolstoy and Brooke Dolan

during a trek across Tibet.
Huc and Gabet, Travels in Tartary, 134.

Sergei I. Rudenko, Frozen Tombs of Siberia: The Pazyryk Burials
of Iron Age Horsemen, trans. M. W. Thompson (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1970), 299-305.

Diana K. Myers et al., Temple, Household, Horseback: Rugs of the
Tibetan Plateau (Washington, DC: Textile Museum, 1984), 36,

cat. 1.

Das, Journey to Lhasa, 41.
Ibid., 213.

Bell, People of Tibet, 21, 28.
Ibid., 109.

This is based on results of recent technical analysis that I have

made of some 140 rugs.—TC

Das, Journey to Lhasa, 213.

Huc and Gabet, Travels in Tartary, 182.
Das, Journey to Lhasa, 74.

See Myers, Temple, Household, Horseback, 26.
Huc and Gabet, Travels in Tartary, 105.

For examples of these early photographs see Myers, Temple,
Household, Horseback, 10. The Tibetan Carpet, Phillip Denwood,
(Aris and Phillips LTD., originally published 1974, reprinted 1986),

9, fig. 7.

Bogle, quoted in Markham, Narratives of the Mission of George
Bogle, 9.

Bogle, quoted in ibid., cxix.
Rockhill, Land of the Lamas, 190.
Bell, People of Tibet, 180-81.
Ibid., 21

James Mellaart, Excavations at Hacilar, vol. 2, Occasional Papers
of the British Institute of Archaeology, no. 10 (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 1970), 117, pl. 69, fig. 1.

35

36

37

38
39

40

41

42

43

Fredrik Hiebert, “Production Evidence for the Origins of the
Oxus Civilisation,” Antiquities 68 (June 1994), 379, fig. 6b.

Hans Bidder, Carpets from Eastern Turkestan (Verlag Ernst
Wasmuth Tubingen, 1964 reprinted 1979), 72.

Philip L. Kohl, ed., The Bronze Age Civilization of Central

Asia: Recent Soviet Discoveries (New York: 1981), 178, fig. 7 for
appearance of knot motif.; V. I. Sarianidi, “Margiana in the
Bronze Age” Philip L. Kohl, ed., The Bronze Age Civilization of
Central Asia: Recent Soviet Discoveries (New York: 1981), 178,

fig. 7.
Huc and Gabet, Travels in Tartary, 168.

Bell, People of Tibet, 217.

For association with the clergy, see Mimi Lipton, ed., The Tiger
Rugs of Tibet (New York and London: Thames and Hudson,
1988), 12, fig. 7.

Khedroob Thondup and Pema Gyalpo, Tibet in Turmoil: A
Pictorial Account, 1950-1959 (Tokyo: Nihon Kogyo Shinbun,
1983), 74-75.

Jane Casey Singer, “The Cultural Roots of Early Central
Tibetan Painting,” in Steven M. Kossak and Jane Casey Singer,
Sacred Visions: Early Paintings from Central Tibet, exh. cat. (New
York: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Harry N. Abrams,
1998), 11.

Viktor Sarianidi, Margush: Ancient Oriental Kingdom in the Old
Delta of the Murghab River (Asgabat, 2002), 198.

33

THOMAS COLE

Most of the rugs presented here were made in the early twentieth century with wool warp and weft. All were made in Tibet, and all are from
the collection of Robert and Lois Baylis. Exceptions to this data are noted in the captions.

Photographs by Bruce M. White

4

TOP SADDLE RUG (?) WITH

FOUR AUSPICIOUS ANIMALS
23 %4 x 29 in.(60.3 x 73.7 cm)
Collection # 294.1

This rug may actually be the top piece of a saddle set, upon which a bride would have rid-
den to greet her new husband and his family. Clearly a whimsical composition rather than
of classical significance, the literal depiction of this group of four animals and mythical
beasts surrounding the flowering pot is unusual. The image of flowers or plants emerging
from a vase is viewed throughout Central Asia as a fertility symbol. The cartoonlike draw-
ing and the rudimentary border of clouds and mountains (a design taken from the more-

sophisticated Chinese models) may represent an effort on the weaver’s part to incorporate

symbols of both power and talismanic significance into a single composition or a view of
the universe in which the new bride should thrive. With a traditional fertility symbol placed

squarely in the center of the rug, this is a distinct possibility. The synthetic dyes date this
rug to no earlier than the late nineteenth century.

37

oe

Co mo -

yet bres <

:
.
oe
”
4

7)
4
os
=:
s
%,

#4
§

=) eA pie oJ

i
7

=

Natit atid taee

, a Sooo SSeS asco asaect

SITTING RUG WITH FOUR
AUSPICIOUS ANIMALS

27 % x 29 in. (70.5 x 73.7 cm)
Collection # 297.18

38

This is one of the very few known Tibetan pile weavings to portray such an array of ani-
mals. Elephant were virtually unknown in Tibet, and their appearance must be regarded in
mythical terms as the one here is shown with other mythical beasts including a garuda and
a snow lion. The appearance of a bird is to be expected, but peacocks, like horses, are also
rarely if ever seen in pile rugs from Tibet. This square was probably once part of a much
longer runner, with more square mats (khagangma) of identical design, upon which monks
would sit during ceremonies. In the mid-1980s a small number of these weavings arrived
on the marketplace from Tibet and quickly disappeared, suggesting that this was a limited
production sponsored by one of the workshops established in the late nineteenth to early
twentieth century. The three-dimensional rendition of the meandering-T primary border
is an indicator, too, of a later date, though all the colors seen here are derived from natural
dyes and the foundation consists of wool.

SADDLE RUG? WITH TIGER, SNOW
LION, DRAGON, AND BUTTERFLY

OR BAT
‘= ir Be . 23 Ys x 30 in. (59.7 x 76.2 cm)
ie . Collection # 490
+ pe NRRAE iY wR
= ciemnienediniiiemnenmmienitels eat Spee Given the palette, with an orange ground

color (usually associated with the clergy),
this small rug may have been the top
piece of an extraordinary saddle set. The
high knot count suggests a sophisticated
workshop with skilled weavers. The but-
terfly or bat (though it looks more like a
bee) in the central medallion, represents
good luck or happiness. It is unusual to
see a snow lion paired with a tiger (the
black body of the tiger in this rug may be
of iconographic significance), surrounded
by a border comprising dragons chasing
the mythical flaming jewel of wisdom and
compassion. The reptilian, scaly body
and animated faces of the dragons are
reminiscent of earlier textile designs from
the Kangxi period (late seventeenth to
early eighteenth century) in China. The
rainbow-striped minor border is an-
other unusual feature. Given the pictorial
nature of the design, the amalgam of Bud-
dhist related elements, the unusual assort-
ment of animals and mythical beasts, and
the colorful palette, this rug represents

a pinnacle of late nineteenth- or early
twentieth-century workshop production.

39

SADDLE RUG WITH SNOW LIONS
30 x 45 in. (88.9 x 114.3 cm)
Collection # 342

4o

The “butterfly” shape of this attractive saddle rug helps date it to after the Younghusband

expedition by the British into Tibet in 1904. The suggestion of tiger stripes, used as an
outer minor border, is unusual, as is the primary border depicting floral elements, some of
which may be auspicious symbols associated with fertility. The snow lions in the field each
carry a flag bearing a symbol or character from the Tibetan alphabet. Adjacent to a symbol
of wealth—a coin with ribbons—each snow lion strikes the classic pose of looking back over

one shoulder while holding a banner aloft in one paw.

[5] Small pile pillow covers were most likely the property of either monks and lamas of an af-
fluent monastic community or members of the landed gentry. They are relatively rare and

PILLOW COVER WITH SNOW LIONS are seldom found with common patterns. This example is one of the few that can be safely
14% x 22 % in. (36.8 x 57.8 cm) assumed to have belonged to a monastic community. The red ground color, though prob-
Collection # 177.332 ably a synthetic dye dating it to a later period, provides a dramatic contrast to the two snow

lions flanking the mythical flaming jewel of Tibetan Buddhism. Stylistically, the drawing

is childlike. The waves of water are simply drawn with no suggestion of the elegant textile
tradition from which the pattern has been derived. As the snow lions play in the sky (there
are clouds surrounding them suggestive of their surroundings), the primary jewel between
them emits vapors (or perhaps this is an attempt to portray decorative ribbons), while fire
erupts from the two smaller jewels beneath them. The presence of a snow lion, national
symbol of Tibet, makes it possible that this pillow cover belonged to a ranking member of

the theocracy rather than merely a high lama.
4l

[s]

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
TIGER AND SNOW LION

35 % x 69 3/8 in. (90.8 x 176.2 cm)
Collection # 429.274

In this whimsical and unusual composi-
tion with its childlike drawing, a tiger in a
bamboo grove confronts a mythical snow
lion that is caressing a jewel. The back-
ground presents a typical Tibetan-style
landscape. Clearly the weaver, attempting
to portray more than one perspective,
took full advantage of the freedom af-
forded Tibetan weavers. With no restric-
tions on or strict codification of design,
weavers were free to exercise their artistic
license. The fine detailing of the snow
lion is complete with spots on the body,

a feature seen in rugs and textiles from a
much earlier period. Though somewhat
rough and angular, the style in which the
tail and mane of the lion are drawn also
suggests that it was modeled after an older
prototype. The rendering of the tiger,
however, is rudimentary; the stripes are
very regular, lacking naturalistic grace

and movement.

42

RAT PN e-

SITTING RUG WITH TIGERS IN
BAMBOO

39 x 69 in. (99.1 x 175.3 cm)
Collection # 417.202

A tiger standing in a bamboo grove is an
often-repeated design, but the significance
of the distinctive stance in this example
has yet to be fully explained. This rug
most likely was made as an audience rug
for a high-ranking member of the ruling
theocracy.' The idea of bamboo groves
seems to have derived from Chinese art,
as bamboo groves are found in Sichuan,
adjacent to the eastern Tibetan region of
Kham, and their depiction may have en-
tered the design pool from there. Smiling
tigers (as well as dragons and snow lions)
are commonly found in Tibetan weav-
ing, belying the inherently fierce nature
of these powerful beasts. But the Tibetan
sense of humor prevails in many of their
artistic efforts, as the animated faces
portrayed with bright colors are a favored

feature of these animals.

1. Diana Myers describes this style of rug as
a horse cover in Temple, Household, Horseback,
95-96, cats. 66-70.

44

SADDLE RUG WITH TIGERS
28 x 46 in. (71.1 x 116.8 cm)
Collection # 116.442

The fierce stance of these tigers—in a classic pose peering back over one shoulder—is well
rendered here, conveying a sense of movement in addition to strength. There is a certain
tension evident in the coiling of the tail and ferocity of the snarling face. The frequent play-
fulness of these cartoonlike figures is absent here. The designs in the border are drawn in a
traditional manner, including auspicious symbols (of both Buddhism and traditional
Chinese symbols) such as flutes, books, and fruits, denoting wealth, culture, and longev-

ity. The ribbonlike design connecting these attributes in the border is handled in a delicate
manner similar to that in Chinese silk textiles. This is another example of the “butterfly”
form and thus can be safely dated to the period after 1904 and the Younghusband expedi-
tion, when the Tibetans may have first encountered British saddlery of this shape.

45

[2

SITTING RUG WITH LEOPARD-SKIN
DESIGN

34 x 62 in. (86.4 x 157.5 cm)

Collection # 401

Weavings featuring a leopard-skin design

the result of using separate dye baths.

GMM
SOOO OOO OOO

OO OPO

0 O
SO OOO OOOO
0.0.0 000.00 OG
5000 OOOO C,
20.0 0.0.0.0. Oak
5 OOO OY SD
OO OO OOO €
020-9 0 0_0.0.0 0 OF"
9 OO OOO O€
070.090.0000
OF OOOO OOOO
OO OOO OOO
> 0.0.0.0.0.0'0.0'0
aOR OF OOO OO
20 080000 0'O O°€
070 0.0.0,0. 00 OO”
OOOO OOOO O'¢
OOOO COO OC
2 OOO ONO OOS
OPAMP Poe
PP QVOL OO Ore, ©

0..0.0.0260.4 OO
eae ama rorcroenos

SITTING RUG WITH TIGER-SKIN
DESIGN

33 x 59 in. (83.8 x 149.9 cm)
Collection # 435.310

A large percentage of rugs with tiger de-
signs consist of the naturalistic depiction
of tiger pelts. Actual tiger skins were used
by the ruling theocracy as audience rugs,
upon which to sit while greeting others
of similar status or honored guests. This
dramatic rug most likely served the same
function. Usually the depiction of the ti-
ger pelt verged on abstraction rather than
a realistic representation as in this one.
There is a marked abrash at the bottom
end, where the strength of the dye bath,
in this case probably made from walnut
husks, is quite dramatic but may have
been unintentional, given the naturalistic
rendition of the tiger stripes.

47

SITTING RUG WITH ABSTRACT
TIGER-SKIN DESIGN

28 x 29 in. (71.1 x 73.7 cm)
Collection # 410

48

Undoubtedly this square mat was used by a man of influence to designate his special place
to sit. It is a rare example of the tiger-skin design in the sitting rug (kbagangma) format. The
arrangement of the stripes, at first glance, seems random, but closer examination reveals an
orderly, if not symmetric, organization. It is also unusual to find a sitting mat woven with
no borders. While the absence of borders on rugs is common, sitting mats without a border
system are quite rare. Published analogies are unknown, and the rarity of this rug cannot be
overemphasized.

FLOOR RUG WITH ABSTRACT
TIGER-SKIN DESIGN

57 x 57 Yin. (144.8 x 146.1 cm)
Collection # 428

:
'
’
'
;

be repens oermerrnereetrenann

Room-size floor rugs (saden) from Tibet are considered a late tradition. Despite early refer-
ences to saden, most rugs of this type were made in the twentieth century and were woven
with machine-spun cotton warps.! They are considered late, decorative rugs. This one,
however, is an exception and thus an important example of the art. It exhibits a weave pat-
tern consistent with others dating with certainty to the nineteenth century. The relatively
coarse weave in conjunction with the all-wool structure is also consistent with other rugs
from that period. As a special floor rug, it would have belonged to an influential person of
the ruling theocracy or someone of high social standing, probably in an urban environment.
Most looms were not designed for large rugs, and this one was hand-woven in two sections
and joined in the middle, as was customary with large rugs throughout rural Central Asia,
including those of the Uzbek, Arab, and Aimag tribal groups of Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.

1. For early references, see Myers, Temple, Household, Horseback, 26.
49

t . cet YRS . ‘ ‘ “ fe y i> nile
iit RAMOS; PAL inte PASM LAN LTRs th iho thitady

RO ik
o

Sa
Ss

7

heen

see & @ & & @& & SF
- arin aang, » 9% 4 gh WGN A WRAPS: > om erase LBs ORG
NOS 6 agg HE « - 7 ’

Pt ae
at ~*~
t,,¢ 3 ¢

et A ok AYU Na BLE PN)

This classic example of a tiger-striped sitting rug (kbagangma) has the suggestion of a
crossed ritual scepter (vajra) in the center. Clearly designated for monastic use by the layout
SITTING RUG WITH ABSTRACT and the red ground border, the abstract crossed-vajra motif merely reconfirms this designa-
TIGER-SKIN DESIGN tion. The manner in which the stripes are rendered emphasizes the central abstract design
30 x 30 in. (76.2 x 76.2 cm) within the circle as focal point. The all-wool structure (both warp and weft), the simple,
Collection #408 spacious drawing of the field and borders, in addition to the relatively coarse knotting,

suggest a nineteenth-century dating, possibly the third quarter.

Cat. Nos. 10-13, details showing progressive

abstraction of the stripes
50

bi _ - _
: arse
f - - the >e -
" .2 n
ms 7 2 .
— = se
z - -
. . a
— “ ee —
~ ones > en
r none 5
= 2 - €:
- 7 Duty c a
. . —
* = -
, “ WA 3 ?
4 * 7 al ~ 2 ne
“4 erie a - ‘
ate c — _ > a .
—
* wade rat hOcat is * -
s ET AE — - ’ é. nares - - Ms .
.. roe 2 “- - = ny ee
7 : Pao « : - . : *
_ ; a ~
. hens - in > -
7 ~ - - ° ™ os = 7 7
e iota as - “ p ae . f
- ‘ = ES
_ = oe > = g 3
= 2 ve al * : Se

Wt ee

BEE AP A 2

tee

, Li es
- . al a Seas ca
sh "Poise BP aan a

“

ud a 4 the
— of d
4 .
ig
>

Pain

SITTING RUG WITH DRAGON
AND PHOENIX

23 Yx 28 % in. (59.7 x 73 cm)
Collection # 321.115

. v
LTS fees ae ad

. a
«> “
SS iL) Mite _ SPs

Tibetan rug aficionados are quick to point out signs of a sense of humor among the weav-
ers of these rugs, given the cartoonlike quality of some of the pictorial images seen. The
exaggerated smile on the face of the dragon belies the more somber and serious interpreta-
tion usually associated with these beasts. The swirling rendition of a phoenix in one corner,
with two lotus flowers in opposite corners, is an interesting variation on the classic theme.
Crude representations of some auspicious symbols associated with Buddhist iconography
are scattered on the midnight-blue field. The weaver was not necessarily skilled in the craft
(demonstrated by the rudimentary drawing in places) but has created a spontaneous and
eccentric rug with no symmetry of pattern, suggesting that it was probably not woven from
an existing cartoon. Given the presence of synthetic dyes, it was probably made after 1900,
possibly closer to 1920.

5)

ps]

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
PHOENIXES AND DRAGONS
35-34 1/2 x 68 % in.

(88.9-87.6 x 174.6 cm)

Collection # 232.182

The dragon and phoenix theme was a
favorite of weavers and their patrons
throughout the weaving world, from
Tibet to Anatolia. Thought to represent
opposing forces, such as yin and yang,
male and female, or sky and earth, the
motif is commonly repeated in rugs from
Tibet. However, in Tibetan rugs dark
blue is more often used as a background
color than white, as here. The drawing

is exceptionally graceful, with a realistic
portrayal of the design appropriated from
Chinese brocade. The style in which
dragons are depicted, with their open
mouths, flowing manes, thin reptilian
bodies, and animated faces, is reminiscent
of late Ming- to early Qing-period textiles
(late seventeenth to early eighteenth cen-
tury). The sensitivity with which the face
of the phoenix is drawn—its large, almost
mournful eyes—the stylized foliate form
of the neck, the flowing multicolored tail,
and widespread wings are also features
dating to that period. The elaborately
embellished baroque depiction of the
precious lotus around which the animals
are placed appears to be derived from a
later period. Few rugs of this design type
predate the commercial period of Tibetan
weaving (1885 to the present), and this is

no exception.

54

SAE A SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG

- ® ~~ :
SoS SS WITH DRAGON AND CLOUDS
; 30 x 59 in. (76.2 x 149.9 cm)
Collection # 194

Here is a single dragon portrayed

as cavorting in the heavens; dragons

are more often in pairs or with their
traditional counterpart, the phoenix. In
this rug a well-balanced if not overly
symmetric field design is complemented
by the presence of a seemingly happy
dragon in the clouds. The water/moun-
tain designs at either end of the field
composition suggest a relationship to
silk brocades, but the manner in which it
is drawn is purely Tibetan—a whimsical,
colorful version of what is considered

a classic Chinese theme. The clouds

are amazingly colorful as well, with

five distinct shades of natural dyes that
contribute to this extraordinary compo-
sition. Interestingly, a swastika design
has been incorporated as well in a very
unusual boxlike form outlined to create
the desired motif. The rug’s borders are
also different, with the primary border
depicting winglike or foliate append-
ages extending outward from a halved
medallion, a feature that usually appears
in the field of Tibetan rugs. Because the
border follows an early format, the rug
may seem to be an old specimen, but
this style of drawing actually appears to
be later than the foliate versions seen in
other rugs of this design type.' Dating
this rug with certainty, however, is dif-
ficult. The brown ground of the border
is probably derived from a walnut-husk
dye, and all the other colors of this rug
originate from vegetal sources, sug-
gesting an early date for a pictorial rug,
possibly about 1870.

1. Hallvard K. Kuloy, Tibetan Rugs (Bangkok:
White Orchid Press, 1982), 165, pl. 154.

55

"“@e@@#ane

SITTING RUG WITH DRAGON
AND VAJRAS

36 %-35%x65 Vin.

(92.7-90.2 x 165.7 cm)

Collection # 236.196

56

, peepee 0 8 @ B10 40 ow eee

Rugs with pictorial images are rarely considered “old,” meaning that they predate 1885, but
this is an exception. With the unique use of the ritual scepter (vajra) motif in the primary
border, it is safe to assume this rug was made for monastic use but not in the traditional
sense because the primary color is neither red nor any other shade customarily associated
with the clergy. Though no larger than a traditional sleeping rug (kAaden), it was most likely
an audience rug upon which a high-ranking personage would seat himself while greet-

ing others of equal rank and may even be one of a pair of such rugs.'! The mirror image of
the designs in these two rugs suggests that such rugs were made in pairs and used as such,
with one dragon facing the other. The checkerboard, reptilian body seems to be older than
other renditions, but it is the absence of embellishment in the field—a dragon walking in an
empty cream-colored field—that suggests this rug is older than others with similar pictorial

patterns. The presence of solely natural dyes also supports this hypothesis.

1. Diana K. Myers, et al., Temple, Household, Horseback: Rugs of the Tibetan Plateau, exh. cat.
(Washington, DC: Textile Museum, 1984), 70, cat. 28.

SADDLE RUG WITH PHOENIXES
28 x 48 in. (71.1 x 121.9 cm)
Collection # 374.198

Phoenixes are usually portrayed in flight but the ones here stand on terra firma. The

uplifted leg is a classic pose, however, transposed from silk textile art, as are the widespread
wings and flowing tail of colorful plumes. The drawing style is purely Tibetan as the weaver
made no attempt to present a direct copy of a formal silk brocade. The clouds are depicted
in a rather rustic manner, as is the lotus at the birds’ feet, presumably emerging from water.
The “butterfly” shape of this saddle rug dates it to a later period, most likely after the
Younghusband expedition of 1904, when British troops invaded Tibet. The shape may be
patterned after British saddlery. The striated blue ground of the center of this saddle rug is
a wonderful approximation of the sky, as the birds peer to the heavens.

57

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
PHOENIXES AND DRAGONS

30 x 58 in. (76.2 x 147.3 cm)

Collection #221

This atypical dragon and phoenix rug
has dragons placed in confronting pairs
in each of the four border systems. The
playful, animated faces of the dragons
recall a style that is often associated with
Kangxi-period silk textiles (1661-1722).
Pictured as if they are flying in the clouds,
the dragons confront the flaming jewel
of Buddhism (symbol of wisdom and
compassion) with apparent glee. The
confident rendering of the two phoenixes
indicates that this is a carefully composed
copy of an early silk textile style. In an
effort to create symmetry of design in the
field, much of the spontaneity that often
characterizes the appeal of Tibetan rugs
is lost. The celestial beings and floral
representations in both the center and
the four corners are mirror images in all
details, suggesting the rug was woven

in a workshop environment using a car-

toon model.

58

SADDLE RUG WITH CRANES
21 %x 32 Vin. (54.6 x 82.6 cm)
Collection # 492.327

This rug must be the top piece of a
saddle set. The portrayal of the birds
seems to draw upon a stylistic tradition
not limited to either one period or a
single type of bird. The cranes are pat-
terned after classic Ming-period textile
renditions of a phoenix with wings
outstretched, but they stand on one leg
and peer over their shoulders, a pose
that is neither associated with cranes nor
phoenixes but rather with birds from a
much earlier Central Asian silk-textile
tradition. The plants growing out of the
representation of mountains in two cor-
ners seem to bear fruit but it is difficult
to identify the kind. They perhaps are
peaches, another symbol of longevity.
The brown field color may be derived
from a walnut-husk dye rather than

the natural wool; the variance in color,
sometimes from one horizontal line of
knotting to the next, suggests abrash
(striations and changes in color due to
the use of different dye baths), not varia-
tions in the actual color of the wool.

59

>

4

ain

SADDLE RUG WITH PHOENIXES
43 44x 47 Yin. (110.5 x 120.7 cm)
Collection # 170.184

Courtesy of John and Jessica Baylis

A variety of design influences are evident in this opulent, lavishly ornamented horse cover.
Large decorative covers like this one were reserved for special occasions and ceremo-

nies and were often associated with the affluent landed gentry or members of the highly
respected theocracy. A distinct Chinese influence is apparent in the Chinese script at the
top end—possibly a stylized version of the shou symbol of longevity—and the rendering of a
phoenix at the bottom of the field, reflecting the artistic style of an earlier period. Both were
probably copied from imported silk textiles, suggesting that the weavers had access to and
were influenced by textiles from abroad. The border, on the other hand, is very unusual in
Tibetan pile weavings. The so-called trefoil, or reciprocal ram-horn border, is more familiar
within the context of a Central Asian textile tradition farther to the west, sometimes as pile

weaving but seen more often in the felt appliqué technique.

cape a eters

na

2

Em.

SW SPY iain El ee)! ONE NS

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG
WITH BIRDS

33 “x 67 % in. (85.1 x 172.4 cm)
Collection # 278.332

This is an extremely unusual rug, with a
combination of design elements seldom
encountered in a single composition.
Clearly birds are the primary theme, but
the secondary (arrowlike) motifs and
tertiary (floral) elements that float in the
watery blue field are seldom encoun-
tered in what is essentially a pictorial
rug. The mountain/water designs at the
top and bottom ends are influenced by
an earlier Chinese prototype, which is
seen in both silk brocades and wool rugs
from the Ningshia region of northern
China. The motif of birds standing in
the field confronting each other in pairs,
with one in the classic posture of look-
ing back over one shoulder, is an older
design, reminiscent of seventh-century
‘Tang- and Sassanian-period textile art.
‘The secondary design element, appar-
ently composed of four arrows point-
ing inward, may be directly related to
another Central Asian motif known as
the erre gol (loosely translated as “saw-
tooth” flower) encountered in Turkmen
rugs. The central bird medallion seems
to reflect the classic theme of fertility; a
flowering plant emerges from what must
be water, and two birds confront each
other. The absence of a primary border
system, while not unknown, is handled
in a manner seldom seen in Tibetan
rugs. The sawtooth design surrounding
the field must be considered the primary
border, and the concentric outer lines of
color are reminiscent of a Central Asian
model and rare within the context of the
Tibetan pile rug weaving tradition.

63

SITTING RUG WITH FLORAL DESIGN
21 %4x31 “in. (54x 80 cm)
Collection # 478

Floral themes in Tibetan weaving are
quite common though few examples are
as detailed and true to an early prototype
as this one is. The delicate and detailed
manner in which the leaves are drawn has
been directly influenced by silk brocade of
the Yuan period when this style flour-
ished. A finely woven rug, it is probably

a workshop production sponsored by a
wealthy family. Others of this type are
consistent in terms of both color and
weaving, suggesting a single workshop or-
igin for them. Saddle rugs of this type are
unknown, making it likely that this was a
mat reserved for use by special guests.

64

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
FLORAL DESIGN

37 2-36. % x 68 in.

(95.3-92.1 x 172.7 cm.)

Collection # 264.261

Foliate floral arrangements are another
design type favored by Tibetan weavers.
Clearly copied from Chinese silk bro-
cades, the actual drawing seen in these
rugs indicates both quality and age. The
lotus flower, as seen in this example, holds
a special place in the design pool of both
Tibetan rugs and Buddhist iconography.
It is one of the Eight Auspicious Symbols
representing the path to enlightenment,
in this case through its growth cycle.

Its roots are mired in the earth (or the
underworld of confusion and darkness),
its stem grows up through the water (the
ever-changing world of life experience),
into the lightness of air (the possibility of
enlightenment). The black background
of this rug is atypical; more often a dark-
blue background color was used. Given
the presence of synthetic dyes and the
very dark ground color, this rug probably
dates to the early twentieth century, about
1910 to 1935.

65

SITTING RUG WITH FLORAL
DESIGN

22 Y% x 35 in. (56.5 x 88.9 cm)
Collection #103

This is an extraordinarily simple rug,
exhibiting a design theme appropriated
from the weaving traditions of neigh-
boring East Turkestan. Although its
central motif may seem to be Chinese
influenced, by the late nineteenth
century, when this rug was most likely
created, the motif of a flowering plant
in a vase had become popularized
throughout the weaving traditions of
Central Asia. The stand on which the
vase sits, however, is certainly influenced
by a Chinese design. The simple field
ornaments appear in sharp contrast to
the understated brown field color, which
probably derived from a walnut-husk
dye. The minor border is a variation

of the “coin/rice-grain” pattern. The
simplicity of the meandering-T border,
without the three-dimensional treat-
ment that would have been achieved

by adding one more color, probably
indicates a nineteenth-century date.

66

ged werpepete er eeiog!

ait petegey see te

mek een ie ;

feet

wied

a
z
be
a
i
: i
4

vat
7%

1 a

waa ITAL

uf -
-_

Aa

Geet ob etdytig its

Tar ea

This is an older horse cover with an unusual embellishment—the checkerboard panel at the
top end. The all-wool foundation, in conjunction with the random, asymmetric arrangement

HORSE COVER WITH of peony blossoms in the field, and the simple “pearl” border are features one might expect
FLORAL DESIGN to see in an older horse cover such as this. There is nothing about the palette or design that
36 x 42 in. (91.4 x 106.7 cm) suggests any religious association, and it was undoubtedly woven prior to the commercial
Collection # 161.107 period of Tibetan rug production. It may have been the property of a wealthy person, pos-

sibly made to celebrate a young woman’s marriage. The good condition, coupled with the

integrity of design and apparent age, suggests that it was made for a special occasion.

Over: Cat. Nos. 23-26, details of floral designs
67

| om
Se eed,

i™

belted Be
eee rie

L

, "hy
nrg

if

od,
—_,
ae
bow
I

“
*

SS

ek,

7
,

= “4 et. aft... 4.” & , ‘ 7 1. ae. a ee a
. : ~ s ae \ iL ‘ apa i 7 5 |
“4, es ae se dee i BOON carkial te all ye “1 — Foe Psy rn BY Hy ta uy ra

7 - \
‘ eee = ee Bah iS. pra _
Laahatiaaanewegaieee ares * “a lbs § Mae SRNR ena \ ee OPE
ae ae Dae et Neotel? Pp ete ew ey eI LMS eBay o Alea STD es eB Soo OF Pa ate spo send og:
» 5 ae * .

PE SARE IA AE Pipe Bae. y en ee ma See ‘eee atithen eae ets iia Ory ¢
Ad Cape NO # Pe tegen ce we wee PLR FAIS
ae He se Do Ph ae. 3 k, ltaa aM ico |
Oe oe PSM Pk Piel? pace “ay is fe 2 ae ee, ease “Wee Ra be Oy am

pis veer vy ke pe tami tet Voieeey Aree

i REE in DE ROA T
sitint ie Depenes basia Ss ssn oo

ee ‘ fall RA |e ree ne ee yst
a Pos : Pea SN ite i ec eee Sa ae

= Pans vai mow * er PR ey as $5 ed va

¥

mys
pat Seo ean Heb, ;
PPA EIN as Se ent ree

a & rh 95 % Eger 7

“

melee 3 = ib Ge » ‘ ; Y

NPE A ight Ca mL “A eal
AR Rp ie Rae ©. I m8 Beaks eat ks { Gere y
; j
‘ £-,

rhode
NN ae

- PEG SS He i pa
Rane: Ve BAY,

“He

ec ied te i 8499 R + Nh Pe an 7 a d iM nasties ae wy
B - we ea
. LON oie pyeere See ‘he : reer tN rR a be
‘ns Nel, ey EPA Se oe oe tea” at aera , ; , Von os 3 as Se ial ib t
vas eS pie PE Spa eae ay a tian Pie vs :
CA ER KOO wrt fem

Dm we Cree Pot Wa a ;
OFS. 2 penis PB Ps ; as vee ea S44 cm /
{ Ae et Bi Ht Syet oy: TR canis a ie Seed a |

Vy Line Shek 28 oye ie Ab ae - lite yg ae ah Sak
htt LANE EME a 4 tip Nee eR ees), Es y ped teal, 1 i Meee la Fp a

ate ad - can . " : aw Se As pings Ties in, Ay ct Nore he Na te A
Ve: Nu. Bg AROS Hage Np, PEASE ae pra oe OF he pe leorte tage a 4 t ~~ tony ner. Aipasat ’y. Are Ree a tS, an << i eo
Twink! hs Gaunt seein eee aw res RLESaKed aR CRIS PA Pe py NT) ok
- ald! war Nee xt dint seed, mene one a Nos Sak . Snake
> r ;

* gy 005, “4

. ’ > ¥ ; F : . r / : Le

tae | +s eet 4 mA

ay LOR Rie a acer
PAKS ayer e omy, nA Ne Ae lbs WN ae Aika gated oct Ds 7, roy:

SU eae on Ca

heey

Cad ae

Aipen, os

7 teehee dette be! eee
Adee eet

adenipel--d
tee @ ‘ : -
te pbagepentntt 39 7
eves & neg
* + rpidabdd Le p+ o
aeRO ORION J

Aa teb ee

te 4 “4
ink ay PIRI Ea
Pet bide
Waren cee. tooe ee oad

Dit bl det eter be egy

ee ed
pt hae

& eee po bdo

ores sot beded dette

bet
vee Bi atrts
trmtpley Pty) hey

44

aR, oe oni

SITTING RUG WITH GEOMETRIC
DESIGN

20 x 28 in. (50.8 x 71.1 cm)

Collection # 1658

The primary design of this rug is seldom
executed in this spacious manner. Usu-
ally the elements were arranged in a
much more congested composition, with
the crosses/checks in closer proximity.
The inference of floral tendrils emanat-
ing from some of the stepped polygon
designs and at either end is unusual. It

is quite uncommon to combine deli-
cate tendril lines with rigid geometry

of a primary design. The green field is
especially attractive, reflecting at least six
different dye baths. This may be the top
piece of a saddle set, but no published
evidence is known.

7o

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
GEOMETRIC FLORAL DESIGN

30 x 66 % in. (76.2 x 169.5 cm)
Collection # 1552.402

It is rare to see Tibetan rugs with an
overall pattern and no border system,
aside from those that intentionally
mimic a Chinese silk brocade with
roundels. This composition, however,

is not derived from a textile prototype
but instead depicts a pattern referred to
as “rice grain.” While this appellation
may be totally erroneous, it is used as

a convenience to identify a particular
motif. This rug may actually be based
on a stylized representation of a coin, a
symbol of wealth to which the Tibetans
certainly had no aversion. The coin mo-
tifis primarily found in the field, usually
covering it entirely, with each “coin”
juxtaposed to the next on both the verti-
cal and horizontal axis. They are only
occasionally used in border motifs. To
see these “coins” spaciously arranged

as they are in this rug is atypical. The
attractive green field has the expected
abrash (color changes due to differing
dye baths).

Te Se TS a TT 8p IVAN EM Mid YN ae

> Od

. tenets REST SU pen wean NOR or TERT
MN eee R ORT SPERM TENG Lene. ~. 2PORH OEE T/A AEELIOTE BTS OVEN Re PO 2 tee NeN OEE Cees eA TEED EOE — -

gn * ae

~
:
¥,

— — a <= at. a Pes
ote Cte Sa ea CaN a ‘as re

wee as
es
>.
|

2s
23
yp fiat

. ? 2
Ayes

.
ve a" 7?

Fs

a. a
rs
rele

tix
«
eese ¥-

ti",

wr

it a hie te “5 een ey te’ “a

a
=e

eoPEOe DS WRENS LAD ETE REPOST SHH RIOT MOBRED FLEE Fe MAELAOOTDROCRS PRET Eee
22
ree 2
-
ao ea't

Covers for cushions or pillows were rarely woven, but they do find a place in some Tibetan
homes, principally those of the affluent and/or the clergy. Woven with all-natural dyes, this
CUSHION COVER WITH FLORAL example apparently emerged from one of the later workshops established in the late nine-
DESIGN teenth century in either Shigatse or Gyantse. The appearance of such motifs as books in the
16 %x 23 Win. (41.9 x 59.7 cm) border indicates the cultural status of the person for whom this was intended, presumably
Collection # 479 an educated member of the ruling class. The simplistic lotus in the field with floral sprays
Courtesty of Robert W. Baylis and extending outward is woven in an elementary fashion, suggesting that the weaver’s skills
Christopher D. Gaba may have been severely tested while working within the allotted space. The appearance

of two secondary borders—the ubiquitous “pearl” border on a blue ground framed by an
equally small and more detailed design—seems to be a feature of later, workshop-oriented
production. This use of multiple secondary borders is seldom seen in rugs made by small
workshops or by individual weavers, suggesting a commercial production where an abun-

dance of design was considered desirable.
72

MAM gn,

yes

_
te
4
>
a
ae

a

r~exte ied
Ras Sars

SITTING RUG WITH GEOMETRIC
DESIGN

27 x 27 ¥% in. (68.6 x 70.5 cm)
Collection # 179.354

74

The design of this sitting rug (khagangma) replicates the patterning seen in tie-dyed wool
textiles indigenous to the plateau region and elsewhere in the Himalayas where ethnic
Tibetans live. They have sometimes, probably erroneously, been identified as meditation
mats.’ Given the “primitive” nature of the design, with no special significance in terms

of Buddhist theory or symbolism, it is probable that such mats were made to mimic the
poulou textile production (a term for woolen textiles indigenous to Tibet) used among the
nomadic and/or rural population. The format—with two “borders” and a field consisting of
three different ground colors—is a close copy of the original prototype, in which different
colored lengths of wool were cut and sewn together to form these covers. Portraying a cross
motif, it is a strictly talismanic design. Rugs of this type are rare, but square mats of this
design type are even rarer, although many fine collections of Tibetan rugs include a longer,

larger weaving bearing this pattern.

1. The closest published analogy, labeled a meditation mat, appears in Woven Jewels: Tibetan Rugs from
Southern California Collections, exh. cat. (Pasedena: Pacific Asia Museum, 1992), 44, pl. 19.

—__ ca

SLEEPING RUG WITH CHECKER-
BOARD AND FLORAL DESIGN

30 x 60 in. (76.2 x 152.4 cm)
Collection # 113

While a checkerboard pattern is relatively
common, it is rarely used in this man-
ner—as a border design and as “fretwork”
or embellishment in the corners of the
field. Checkerboard rugs were once
thought to be practice rugs, woven by
students or young weavers learning their
craft, but this theory has been dismissed,
and we are left to speculate on the pos-
sible significance of the pattern. As a
group of juxtaposed crosses with talis-
manic implications, the border is clearly
intended to “protect” those who may
have used it as a sleeping rug (khaden).

It is extremely colorful, having six colors
in the corners, which is more than most
multicolored checkerboard rugs. The
field ornaments are more geometric than
floral, resembling stylized crosses, pos-
sibly even crossed ritual scepters (vajras).
Whatever the intention of the weaver, the

result is an artistic success.

75

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
GEOMETRIC DESIGN

29 x 60 in. (73.7 x 152.4 cm)
Collection # 133.348

Woven in three sections on a narrow
backstrap loom, this type of rug is identi-
fied as a tsu-truk. Such rugs are often
merely strips of solid color, usually blue
but sometimes red or golden brown.
The coarse nature of the weave, coupled
with the extremely simple design that
does not correspond to the standard
checkerboard type, suggests a nomadic
provenance. Earlier publications on
Tibetan rugs disputed the existence of a
nomadic production, but photographic
evidence of women working looms seems
to have finally put this question to rest.
Rugs of this type recently appeared in the
marketplace (1985-2000), engendering

a new appreciation for the art form as
well as an expanded view of the possible
origins. In this example, the attempt to
make a checkerboard design is quaint,
but compared with the sophistication of
other village and urban versions, this rug
must be considered an ethnographic
oddity rather than fine art.

76

ave
ae

V0
¢

bee
ye,
La © Ato pei Mae ar

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
CHECKERBOARD DESIGN

32 %x 72 in. (82.6 x 182.9 cm)
Collection # 118

This is an extraordinary example of a
checkerboard pattern, transcending any
preexisting prejudices about the simple
pattern. Abstract and wonderfully color-
ful, with shades of blue, blue-green, and
green, alternating with a brilliant madder
red, it is a work of art in the truest sense
of the word. The color changes are
unplanned, but the weave is relatively fine
and the materials are exquisite. The wool,
from a later period (about 1900), has a
velvetlike texture reserved for only the

finest weavings.

78

..

a |

*
u

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
CHECKERBOARD DESIGN

36 x 67 in. (91.4 x 170.2 cm)

Collection # 114

Tricolored checkerboard rugs are a spe-
cific type, rather than a random, whimsi-
cal interpretation of the design. The
codified nature of the design dictates
the use of these three colors without
variation. The significance of the color
scheme remains a mystery. The first
appearance of such a design dates to

the seventh century, appearing as the
painted depiction of a rug or textile on

a wooden plaque excavated in the early
twentieth century in the Taklamakan
Desert by Sir Aurel Stein.' In this paint-
ing a three-headed deity sits on a throne
or elevated seat that is covered with a
similarly colored checkerboard textile or
weaving. Rugs of this design type appear
with an all-wool structural foundation
and a somewhat coarser knot count than
many other checkerboard rugs, indicat-
ing this may be an older type that, for
some unknown reason, fell out of favor
with weavers in Tibet.

1. Tamara Talbot Rice, Ancient Arts of Central
Asia (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965),
205, fig. 197.

79

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
THREE MEDALUONS

31 x 56 in. (78.7 x 142.2 cm)

Collection # 287.356

This is an extremely unusual composition.
The drawing is very quaint, consisting

of a folk-art rendition of a time-honored
design theme rarely encountered in Tibet.
The two “clouds” arranged on either

side of a sun/moon motif on a beautifully
colored blue to blue-green field have
been stylized by the Tibetan weaver. The
clouds are drawn in a manner reminis-
cent of the classic Central Asian “cloud
collar,” or contiguous ram-horn design.
Animal horns form an important seg-
ment of the design pool throughout the
region. Symbolizing fertility or protec-
tion as a simple talisman, representations
are seen throughout Tibet. The ritual
masked dancers participating in annual
ceremonies will cover their faces with
horned animal-head images carved from
wood, and complete yak heads have been
seen hanging in Bon temples. Yak horns
mounted above entryways as talismans are
a common sight in Tibet. A remnant of
animist beliefs with a relevance that has
persisted over time, the literal representa-
tion seen here is fairly traditional. But
seldom did Tibetan weavers depict either
the sun or moon in their rugs and textiles,
preferring to show a flaming jewel in their

textile art.

iy Ft ay fae

SADDLE RUG? WITH CHINESE-
STYLE MEDALLION

22 x32 in. (55.9 x 81.3 cm)
Collection # 109.311

This rug is possibly the top piece of a
saddle set. Its red color and the presence
of two swastikas in the field suggest that
it was woven for the clergy, probably at
an earlier date than many rugs bearing a
similar medallion in the center. Ostensibly
derived from a Chinese textile prototype,
the medallion is startling in its use of
positive and negative space. The recipro-
cal design is defined by the red ground
color of the interior. Few medallions of
this type exhibit such a simple and clearly
delineated form. Most are executed in a
similar color scheme to the one seen here,
with the field color contrasted against a
lighter ground hue. Two shades of red
create a primary meandering-T border,
which is not drawn in the earliest style.
Even so, the rug may predate many of this
design type because the drawing of the
medallion is simply too good.

81

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
THREE MEDALUONS

29 x 55 in. (73.7 x 139.7 cm)

Collection # 223.140

This rug has a cheerful palette and pleth-
ora of auspicious symbols in the border.
The combination of Taoist and Buddhist
iconography in the primary border sug-
gests the rug may have been made for a
person and/or family of stature. Symbols
of culture and education (such as books
and flutes) were not embraced by rural
weavers nor would they have been found
to be meaningful as décor in domestic ru-
ral interiors. The use of the meandering-
T in the minor border, coupled with the
“pearl” border, is atypical. The meander-
ing-T is usually seen as the primary bor-
der on village rugs, suggesting a workshop
origin for the weaving. The medallions
are drawn with an unusual white ground
color. White is not associated with a rite
of passage or rituals in Tibet as it is in
other locales such as India, where white
is the color of widowhood, or Central
Asia, where it is used in rugs made for the
wedding procession of a young bride. It is
curious to see its abundant use in this rug,
coupled with the unusually complex and
meaningful primary border designs.

82

t%
@
.
a
&
a
s
a
e

zea —
j fr fac =.
ee
@ butt ol [ Be.

I iN i i 1 ” at a ge eit aT ali BS

i, oP

Pi tooo 7
ry ee af Lory ru =

TETANY

fy "] ies 'es
ed auahgal

5
ee |

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG WITH
THREE MEDALUONS

30 %4x 57 % (76.8 x 146.1 cm)
Collection # 210.92

For all the variations and quirks in
Tibetan rugs, design concepts are es-
sentially codified. Again, we see the
three-medallion layout in the field, with
the central medallion differing from the
two flanking it, symbolizing the Buddha
with a designated place for attendants

on either side. The two flanking medal-
lions are atypical, seemingly represented
as large flower forms containing the

shou pattern, symbolizing longevity. The
primary border is typical, but the second-
ary border, consisting of crosses on a blue
ground, is unusual. The crosses are used
as talismans to ensure good luck. The
whimsical manner in which the designs
in the corners of the field are handled are
also worth mentioning. While the design
concept is traditional, the loose drawing
of the pattern without abutting the bor-
ders is unusual. The outer border with a
blue overdye of natural brown-black wool
is consistent with earlier weavings from
Tibet, and undoubtedly this rug dates to
the nineteenth century.

83

SLEEPING RUG WITH THREE
MEDALUONS

29 x 54 in. (73.7 x 137.2 cm)
Collection # 183

The distinctive blue field of this rug
shows a dramatic abrash (color change due
to the changing dye baths), which is im-
mediately apparent and quite lovely. The
medallions offer a subtle variation on the
standard fare seen in many Tibetan rugs.
As usual, the central medallion differs
from the two flanking it at either end of
the field. The central medallion appears
to be a combination of three different
types transposed, one on top of the other,
creating an interesting illusion of depth.
With swastikas in the three medallion
centers (rotating clockwise in the Bud-
dhist style), in addition to the scrolling
swastika border design, we are reminded
of the various meanings this motif evokes
in many Tibetan rugs, including those
made for the clergy. And although this
rug was probably not intended for mo-
nastic use, the ubiquitous swastika motif
is featured here. The tendril motifs in the
field that seem to separate the medal-
lions are quite elegantly drawn and the
mountain/wave motifs in the four corners
incorporate a decidedly abstract style that,
too, is quite attractive.

84

<

epee ei Los oa piwa? ;

> neta Kap

¢

SITTING RUG WITH SINGLE
MEDALUJON

18 x 24 in. (45.7 x 61 cm)
Collection # 332

Courtesy of John and Jessica Baylis

Lo n~qenirce. R
y +. a
§ « q
oe ae eee
SUT oes pags LIP host MEITSEROTHNT Seeomregen gyi HTT ee cerget

ae TO het id 200 7 8S GEES oe A prereres, x

JERE AE PO ; oe ae | tired _

P

CARTED ager cones Seer eR <TR IPRS AED NS ORE © » -~

f
Soteea tere

wlonw + arenes

Aree
ure |
Fe
af

aad apel
Jihad,

“t

Ppreast
ad

oy

a |
Ses
aay

fy

SED el
| 2
verre }

taseeace.

I yr
nat
Sh ehed yf

te
iI

‘4
Howes

ry 3

aiehiee ee

This extraordinarily colorful mat may have been made to accommodate a monk or lama vis-
iting a layman’s home. While on pilgrimage, it was traditional for such trekkers to seek shel-
ter among the local population in the villages they passed through. It is also possible that it
was made for the living quarters of the clergy. The use of red and yellow in the border, two
colors exclusively associated with weavings for monasteries, supports this theory, as does the
color of the field, a beautiful shade of red. While the Tibetans have never been renowned
for their dyeing prowess, the colors seen here are deeply saturated and well applied, with no
sign of fading. Often, yellow dyes prove to be fugitive over time with exposure to light. The
brown outer border coupled with a rich purple ground to the “pearl” inner border is also
suggestive of age, and it is likely this rug predates many that we have seen of similar design.

85

DOUBLE-SEATED RUG WITH LOTUS
FLOWERS

32 x 53 in. (81.3 x 134.6 cm)

Collection # 335.171

This extremely colorful and highly
evolved design type was favored by the
affluent landed gentry and/or monastic
communities in the first half of the twen-
tieth century. A seemingly double-seated
rug, this may be a fragment of a longer
monastic runner on which monks would
seat themselves during ceremonies. De-
rived from a textile pattern, the complex
border design is replete with a variety of
auspicious symbols in hexagonal compart-
ments, a later stylistic feature. The large
lotus in each field is also patterned after a
prototype that first appeared in Chinese
brocades. The richly embellished design
verges on the baroque, its composition
suggesting a later date of manufacture.
The palette, with its preponderance of
orange and red, also suggests this rug was

made for monastic use.

86

SADDLE RUG WITH MEDALUIONS
23 % x 53 % (60.3 x 135.9 cm)
Collection # 372

Saddle rugs with rounded ends are
presumed to be the oldest examples of
the form. Despite an especially crisp and
fresh condition, this rug is apparently
older than others of the type. The design,
in white, contrasts greatly with the dark
midnight-blue field. This is because the
white design was executed in unbleached
cotton rather than undyed wool. It is rare
to see white cotton used to articulate a
design, and perhaps it was chosen simply
because of the startling contrast that
could be achieved. Woven in two pieces
and joined in the middle, the medallion is
very well drawn, exhibiting all the char-
acteristics of classic nineteenth-century
Tibetan weaving. The meandering-T
border is simple and understated, blend-
ing into the background as the white cot-
ton “pearl” minor border overwhelms it.
It is unclear from which part of Tibet this
rug originated. It is an extremely elegant
saddle rug, with an uncharacteristically
restrained and somewhat austere execu-

tion of design.

88

SADDLE RUG WITH MEDALIIONS
25 x 53 in. (63.5 x 134.6 cm)
Collection # 343

‘This example of a saddle rug is woven in
the same embroidery technique seen in
Catalog Number 48 but may be a gen-
eration older than that rug, possibly dat-
ing to the mid-nineteenth century. The
sparse handling of the border design is
associated with an earlier aesthetic. The
medallions on either half of the saddle
rug, while immediately familiar, are
distinguished by unusual drawing that
separates them from other floral medal-
lion types. The spacious centers of the
medallions easily accommodate a single
flower head, a treatment that is quite
different from others of the general
type. The embroidery technique with
which this rug was made has not been
seen elsewhere in Central Asia, but there
is a similarity to textiles from neighbor-
ing Kashmir, suggesting that Christian
missionaries may have introduced this
technique to weavers in Tibet. There
are few known rugs that were made in

this manner.!

1. See Temple, Household, Horseback, 58-9, cat.
4 and fig. 3 for another possible example of an
embroidered rug.

89

SADDLE RUG SET WITH
CHINESE-STYLE MEDALUJONS
27 x 42 3/8 in. (68.6 x 107.6 cm)
25 x 35 1/4 in. (63.5 x 89.5 cm)
Collection # 393.368

Rugs woven in this style, distinguished
by the use of only two colors (in this
case, shades of blue, but often beige

and dark brown), are typical of a later
workshop production that probably
began in the early twentieth century.
The shape of the bottom piece of this
saddle rug set (flared at the lower end in
what is known as a “butterfly” shape) is
thought to have been patterned after the
saddle cloths used by British troops who
invaded Tibet with the Younghusband
expedition in 1904. The decorations

are clearly inspired by a Chinese design
pool, incorporating classic elements,
including books (symbolizing the value
of learning), coins (wealth), mirrors or

a rhombus (wealth in art), a lozenge
(victory), and the pilgrims’ gourds from
which spirals of smoke escape (a magical
symbol with power to set the spirit free
from this earthly body). The central me-
dallion of the top rug, which is repeated
on the bottom piece, is familiar to old
Chinese silk brocades and may also be a
mandala (symbolizing the cosmos).

go

4 % if NZ i a me
—- 4 U
‘ , ’ ’ y é5 ¢ ¥

4

= te
«nm ~~,
in 2525 . c q

or Whee yt ae © he eer err

— ter? <P >
Oe

bot she}

.
_ ith wil

a in wt

5 «f Leonie ee et ee ee
%
)

& A
tite

><.
or,

Go

Bt 8 Serer Hegwset 6 UT Cate we tr

;
'

eine)

|
|

cape cohen

ee a ar ae ae ee «7

’
AOE? RAD ET ME Dg 59+} APRN emer 88s recgp aoe —e)

SADDLE RUG SET

24 x 34 in. (61 x 86.4 cm)

25 4x47 Win. (64.8 x 120.7 cm)
Collection # 348/9

Saddle rugs were always made in pairs.

A larger rug was placed under the saddle,
and a smaller, rectangular or rounded rug
(depending on the shape of its mate be-
neath) was used on top as a cushion for the
rider. Few sets remain intact, the pieces
being sold at different times and places.
The rich red color of the field is a distinc-
tive feature of this saddle set, with the
white frog-foot design providing a con-
trast in color and design. The frog-foot
motif is used prolifically, and its signifi-
cance has never been adequately explained
outside of oral folk legends and myths. It
may actually represent a tree, a symbol
used throughout Central Asia and often
associated with fertility, birth, and death.
As it appears in Tibetan rugs, it most
closely resembles the border design of a
very early rug excavated in the Taklam-
akan Desert (now in the Urumqi Museum
in China). It may have derived from stone
seals from Central Asia (dating to about
1700 BCE). Though this saddle carpet

is not the oldest type known (the three-
dimensional rendering of the meandering-
T border and the rectangular shape with
notched ends are later nineteenth-century
features), it is an especially rich example
with an unusually saturated palette. The
gold central panel, in conjunction with the
red ground color, may indicate it was used
by a monk or lama, rather than a layman.

91

saa ae se Tae a,

Bas a)

= = = = = = a =

ee ee cy

2

rad

ante
jue

SITTING OR SLEEPING RUG
WITH SINGLE MEDALLION
Ca. 1850

21% x 36 in. (55.2 x 91.4 cm)
Collection # 237.197

y t a
ioe” beeserun demem,!
a
aevaty
or ay

bere: gat” Lone
.

us ke

= tars are Se
aa ee

fer by

ee |

_

This rug depicts the “Rockhill” medal-
lion, named after W. Woodville Rockhill,
a diplomat/author/ethnographer who

»

PEs
seni.

ateaniteieaee: chittinimiemees | al |

wey pel

ee

aa |
|

traveled to Tibet in the late nineteenth
century. The palette, consisting of a pleas-

tenet pel

et ——e

ant blend of all-natural dyes, identifies

t

this as an older example of the type, dat-

a

ing to about 1850. The brown outer bor- * ,
der and the subtle shade of purple used }
&

as the ground for the secondary “pearl”

Se pe ie | qeage ag pee eae
my
a

| T dieleeal taladial | 7
Y

4 Rx

i

border are features associated with this

earlier period. The manner in which the

SRE TS DOT Pe rg eS Ge ep er By gs

eee
Reem zs

meandering-T primary border retains the
integrity of design as it navigates the cor-

"

ners of the rug suggests a skilled weaver

who was very familiar with the design.

1
Li ‘ ;

id

a
Ba

i
~ &
a

a

%

a |

*-
os
+ +
tik
ee

ise

|

i

Sars 8 Rome art oral ARLE os SR PES aR cE RT OPE ET cyt Daten,
| 1 4 " t _ 4 ; » t
oe aemeietenies ‘Tl ietee satin Ti on ans

eee A
7
Otte: eal
abs ee
F

Ca

Gy: ek = ee

“id YP tt gee

92

SITTING RUG WITH SINGLE
MEDALUION

27 x 50 in. (68.6 x 127 cm)
Collection # 289.359

The sparse border designs, enigmatic
central medallion, and coarse weave pat-
tern suggest that this is an older example
of Tibetan weaving. The brown minor
border framing the entire composition
corresponds to what is considered the
earliest pile rug tradition, from China,
dating to no later than the eighteenth
century. Early Chinese rugs are often
found with a brown outer border dyed
with an iron oxide mordant that de-
grades the wool, and many early Tibetan
rugs also incorporate this kind of border,
though without the corrosive effects
seen in their eastern counterparts. How
this feature evolved into a trademark of
an earlier aesthetic is unknown. Perhaps
it represented a connection to the earth,
a reference to the nurturing brown soil,
introducing this concept into a composi-
tion that was often devoted to celestial
iconography and fantastic themes.

The central medallion, ostensibly an
extremely simple pattern, uses posi-

tive and negative space to create two
very different patterns in one complete
form. The blue ground of the medallion
reads as a distinct image of ultimately
greater visual interest than the primary
image in red. Traditional studies often
determine swastikas to be used exclu-
sively as Buddhist symbols, but simple
village rugs like this one are generally
devoid of religious symbolism. Though
the swastika was seen in the temples and
on the fine textiles with which the clergy
surrounded themselves, its significance
here must be viewed within a greater
Central Asian context as a design ele-
ment of decorative significance predat-
ing the advent of Buddhist teachings on
the Tibetan Plateau.

95

SADDLE RUG WITH SINGLE
MEDALUON

27 x 32 in. (68.6 x 81.3 cm)
Collection # 337

The rounded format and size of this rug
suggest that it was made as the top piece
of a saddle set, but the technique used

in its making is very different from that
found in most pile rugs from Tibet. It is a
style of embroidery; the knotting or rows
of warp and weft of other rug techniques
are absent. When rugs of this structural
type first appeared in the marketplaces of
Lhasa and Kathmandu in the late 1980s,
it was thought they must be older than
others. That is probably not the case with
this example. The show character (symbol
of longevity) in the center and the dense
arrangement of frog-foot designs do not
appear to be very old based on com-
parison to other examples. The flowing
tendrils in the border might be considered
an earlier drawing style, but the embroi-
dery technique lends itself to this type of

movement.

94

SADDLE RUG WITH MEDALIIONS
25 ¥% x 50 in. (65.4 x 127 cm)
Collection # 387.318

Saddle rugs made in this oblong, rounded
shape usually date to about the mid-
nineteenth century or earlier. The border
design, with scrolling foliate forms, also
suggests significant age. But there is an
angularity to the foliage that is incon-
sistent with what is present in other
examples from this time period. The shou
symbol (representing longevity) in the cir-
cular medallion is an unexpected design to
encounter in the oldest saddle rugs, as are
the flowering shrubs with lotus flowers

on either side of these medallions. Floral
decoration in the field usually indicates

a date no earlier than about 1885. The
Tibetan script may identify either the
owner or the weaver of the rug, and again
such inscriptions are seldom encountered

in earlier rugs.

95

DOOR COVER RUG
35-32.3/4 x 62 % in.
(88.9-82.2 x 158.1 cm)
Collection # 178.353

Rugs woven specifically to cover a

door are seen throughout the weaving
cultures of Central Asia. Those of the
‘Turkmen, with a similar quartered-field
format, have created the standard by
which all these rugs are judged. The
Tibetan counterparts are usually much
simpler in terms of iconography and
subsequent interpretation of design, but
this example differs significantly. A motif
of flowering plants emerging from vases
is not typical. Traditionally interpreted
as a fertility symbol, this motif dates to
the third or fourth century as seen in

a carved wood panel excavated in the
early twentieth century from Niya by Sir
Aurel Stein. The appearance of the styl-
ized shou symbol in the upper two panels
suggests an urban origin for this rug, as
village or rural weavers were unlikely to
embrace a very foreign motif, regardless
of its meaning. Symbolizing longev-

ity, the Chinese shou in rugs is seldom
encountered in any but the most refined
workshop production. Tibetan door
rugs were usually modeled after those
more commonly seen throughout Tibet,
which were cut from cloth and sewn to-
gether using an appliqué technique. The
design at the top end of this rug simu-
lates those cotton cloth door covers,
complete with a blue fringe just beneath
the ubiquitous meandering-T border
with uninterrupted lines of color used to

resolve the topmost composition.

96

DR ST OF ETS gt RO RP eg

DOOR COVER RUG
32 %4x 59 % (83.2 x 150.5 cm)
Collection # 173

The tradition of hanging rugs, or

other weavings or textiles in a doorway,

is known throughout Central Asia. The
quartered-field format is consistent with
door rugs made by Tibetan weavers as
well as Turkmen and Uzbeks. Such rugs
are believed to have been reserved for use
among socially and politically influential
members of a tribe or village. In Tibet
many of these opulent door rugs exhibit

a palette suggestive of monastic function.
The rare exceptions, in terms of color and
design, were most likely commissioned
by wealthy landowners, dating to a later
period when there were established work-
shops. The horizontal bands of color and
design at the top mimic the more com-
mon Tibetan door covers, which are made
of cotton appliqué and are thought to be
merely decorative rather than of symbolic
significance.

Aees|

dy

97

ISPS a trees
a tp S Fee wn. > x, :

- 2 REP RSE”
et Lad im 2

oo

«4 r
fea

Akt bets
mht xt tui, Ke
Ae peekit

Wt Aa eae
Wiaxny

we

<

oi Phe

w

‘ rT, =
4 es ae ERS
: a ATT hed

Bae
Thy
\ het re *
. iy 29 vevwey Bie = att"
YY Lae A hatis ef"

ey ee eee
Pe Soa
ay |e" te! ;

SITTING RUG WITH SWASTIKAS
31 %4x 59 % in. (80.6 x 151.8 cm)
Collection # 136.23

In this boldly drawn, abstract composi-
tion, two large swastikas (the word de-
rived from Sanskrit, meaning auspicious)
dominate the indigo blue field with a
very attractive color change known as
abrash, a Persian word used in rug stud-
ies to indicate striations and changes in
color caused by the different dye baths
in which the wool was immersed. Never
considered master dyers, the Tibetan
weavers who created this unusual rug
succeeded in their experiment with
indigo, executing with no plan and,
nevertheless, creating a visually attrac-
tive result. The blue striations impart a
liquid feel to the surface of the rug, as
if the swastikas and flowers are float-
ing on a body of water. The rug was
clearly intended for monastic use, given
the red outer border and red swastikas
(a color associated with rugs made for
the clergy). It is unusual to see a rug
with large swastikas as virtually the only
design used. The small flowers carefully
placed among the two larger elements
are apparently nothing more than deco-
rative additions.

99

SITTING RUG WITH SWASTIKA
37 x 38 in. (94 x 96.5 cm)
Collection # 504.371

Joo

This siting mat, intended for monastic use, is made in a technique quite different from

that used for most Tibetan rugs. It has been referred to in the literature as a “warp faced
back” technique, whereby the dyed tufts of wool from which the design in pile is seen are
not visible from the back of the rug as they are in other weaving methods. This technique,
which may be very old, is encountered throughout Central Asia. The result is a very thick
rug, well suited to the cold Tibetan climate and especially the floors of monastery halls. The
origin of this style of weaving is uncertain, but it may have begun in the rural areas of Tibet.
At times, these rugs have as few as four knots per square inch, but the knots are very thick,
as are the sheds of wefts (the horizontal rows of wool comprising the foundation), resulting
in a thick and warm seat. The warps are often composed of different materials, suggesting
different provenance for some and possibly older dating for others.

SITTING RUG WITH SWASTIKAS
24 x 32 in. (61 x 81.3 cm)
Collection # 303

The use of a single color—here varying
shades of indigo—was quite common in
rugs of this design type. The absence of
a border system with the very densely
drawn swastika fretwork pattern is remi-
niscent of Chinese silk brocades or even
of elaborately carved wooden furniture
and screens. The small size of this rug
seems to suggest that it is actually a sit-
ting mat (khagangma) for seating special
guests, probably made for an upper-class

member of the populace.

lol

“
7
-
~
a
'
ue

murda

2

a ase

“=
= =o
Feces,

SITTING RUG WITH CROSSED-
VAJRA

23 %x 27 in. (59.7 x 68.6 cm)
Collection # 329.146

102

Rhee ots

bivetceoke

—
eEmbe.
<n

The crossed-vajra motif is possibly the most recognizable symbol of Tibetan Buddhism

to any observer of classical art from the plateau region. Vajras (ritual scepters) are the
quintessential symbol of Vajrayana Buddhism in Tibet. The depiction of this symbol with
four different colors in a rug is unique in our experience and is indicative of the weaver’s
effort to conform to the codified structure of classical Buddhist art, with the individual
colors representing each of the four cardinal directions. Though unique, the rug is not
entirely successful from the perspective of Buddhist art as represented in mandalas.

A clockwise turn of the crossed vajra would have completed the weaver’s effort to conform
but she failed, as the green color represents the north which in mandalas faces to the right
rather than to the top as we, in the West, would orient ourselves with the four directions.
Her error, however, does not demean the artistic integrity of the weaving. The three-
dimensional treatment of the border, usually considered a later feature (about the late
19th century), is well handled here, turning the four corners flawlessly. Though not the
earliest example of the crossed-vajra motif, it may be one of the more correct iconographic

depictions as well as a visually dynamic rendition of this classic design.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beckwith, Christopher. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia.
Princeton University Press, 1987.

Bell, Charles. The People of Tibet, 1928. New Delhi: Asian
Educational Services, 1991.

Bidder, Hans. “Carpets from East Turkestan.” Accokeek, Md,
Washington International Associates, Veerlag Ernst Wasmuth
‘Tubingen, 1964 (reprinted 1979).

Bower, Hamilton. Diary of a Journey Across Tibet, 1894. Edited by H.
K. Kuloy. Kathmandu: Ratna Putstak Bhandar, 1976.

Cole, Thomas. “Dream Weavers: Textile Art from the Tibetan
Plateau.” Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2004.

. “A Tribal Tradition.” London: HALI #49 (1991).

. “Tibetan Carpets: From a Cultural Crossroad.” Oriental
Rug Review, Vol. 13, #3 (1993).

. “Chinese Carpets: Art from the Steppes.” London: HALI #67
(1993).

Das, Sarat Chandra. Journey to Lhasa and Central Tibet, 1879-1881.
New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1988, pp. 66-7.

Denwood, Philip. The Tibetan Carpet. Warminster: Aris & Phillips,
LtD, 1974.

Frankfort, H. P. The Central Asian Dimension of the Symbolic System
in Bactria and Margiana, Volume 68, #259. Antiquity Publications,
Oxford University Press June 1994).

Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia.
‘Translated by Naomi Walford. New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press, 1970.

Hiebert, Fredrik. Production Evidence for the Origins of the Oxus
Civilisation. Antiquities, Vol. 68, #259, Oxford University Press June
1984).

Holdich, Sir Thomas. Tibet The Mysterious, 1906. New Delhi: Asian
Educational Services, 1996.

Huc, Evariste and Joseph Gabet. Travels in Tartary, Tibet, and China,
1844-1846. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1988.

Kuloy, H. K. Tibetan Rugs. Bankok: White Orchid Press, 1982.

Lipton, Mim. The Tiger Rugs of Tibet. London and New York:
‘Thames and Hudson, 1988.

1o4

Markham, Clement R. Markham, ed. Narratives of the Mission of
George Bogle to Tibet and of the Journey of Thomas Manning to Lhasa,
1876. Guildford, UK: Genesis Publishing Pvt. Ltd., 1989.

Masson, V. M. “Seals of a Proto-Indian Type from Altyn-Depe.” In
The Bronze Age Civilisation of Central Asia, edited by Philip L. Kohl.
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1981.

Mellaart , James. Excavations at Hacilar, Vol. 2. Edinburgh
University Press for the British Institute of Archaeology, 1971.

Myers, Diana K., et al. Temple, Household, Horseback: Rugs of the
Tibetan Plateau, Washington, DC: The ‘Textile Museum, 1984.

Parpola, Asika. Pre-Proto-Iranians of Afghanistan as Initiators of Sakta
Tantricism on the Scything/Sakta Affiliations of the Dasas, Nuristanis and
Magadian. Helsinki: Iranian Antique, Vol. XXXVI (2002).

P’Yankova, L. Central Asia in the Bronze Age: Sedentary and Nomadic
Cultures. Antiquities, Vol. 68, #259. Oxford University Press (June
1994).

Rockhill, William Woodville. The Land of the Lamas: Notes of a
Journey through China, Mongolia and Tibet, 1891. New Delhi: Asian
Educational Services, 1988.

Rudenko, S.I. Frozen Tombs of Siberia. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1970.

Singer, Jane Casey. “The Cultural Roots of Early Central Tibetan
Painting.” In Sacred Visions: Early Paintings from Central Tibet, edited
by Steven M. Kossak and Jane Casey Singer. New York: Harry N.
Abrams, 1988.

Sinor, Denis, ed. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990

Stein, R. A. Tibetan Civilization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 1970.

‘Tucci, Giuseppe. Transhimalaya. Geneva: Nagel Publishers, 1973.

‘Turner, Samuel. An Account of an Embassy to the Court of the Teshoo
Lama in Tibet, Part 3, “Report Delivered to The Hon. Warren
Hastings, Esq. Upon The Result of My Mission to the Court of the
Teshoo Loomboo.” New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1991.

‘Tung, Rosemary Jones. A Portrait of Lost Tibet (with 1940s
photographs by Ilya Tolstoy and Brooke Dolan). London and New
York: Thames and Hudson, 1980

Tibet in Turmoil A Pictorial Account 1950-1959. Tokyo: Futami Noji,
Nihon Kogyo Shinbun, 1983.

SFT BE LO ERT yoy

22 OME: